Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Devolved Government

Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on prospects for the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland.

Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on the prospects for the Northern Ireland Assembly reconvening.

Tom Harris: When he expects the devolved institutions of Northern Ireland to be restored.

Peter Hain: The Government are committed to the restoration of a fully inclusive, devolved, power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland at the earliest opportunity, which is in turn dependent on a complete and verifiable end to all paramilitary and criminal activity and the decommissioning of all illegally held weapons.

Ben Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although Northern Ireland has come a long way in recent years, the key element in all this is trust? Events have served to eradicate trust between the parties. What steps does he think need to be taken to restore that trust by each of those concerned?

Peter Hain: I agree that there has been an erosion of trust since Easter 1998, and that needs to be rebuilt. It will best be rebuilt by all those involved in paramilitary activity and criminality in Northern Ireland ending that involvement, full stop. That is what has to be achieved.

Ann Winterton: Now that we have tragically seen once again the effects of terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom, will that not reinforce the view that there is no place in the future Government of Northern Ireland for those who have abused our democracy by the bullet and the bomb? Does the Secretary of State agree that no progress can be made until the structures of terrorism, such as the IRA, are dismantled? Without such action, as the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman) has just said, there can be no trust in a peaceful future for Northern Ireland.

Peter Hain: I have been very struck in Northern Ireland in recent days by the tremendous sympathy shown by people right across Northern Ireland, of all backgrounds, all beliefs and all political parties, with the people of London and of Great Britain as a whole. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be pleased by that indication of where sentiment lies. Of course we want to rid Northern Ireland politics for good of the bombs, the bullets and the punishment beatings, of all violence and certainly of all terrorism, and that is what we are working on.

Tom Harris: During my right hon. Friend's recent visit to the United States, did he have any meetings with representatives of the Irish-American community, and if so what views did they express regarding the possibility of the restoration of devolution in the near future?

Peter Hain: I did indeed meet members of the Irish-American community in Washington and New York, and had excellent discussions with them, as well as with the Secretary of State, Condi Rice, and with special envoy, Mitchell Reiss. I was struck by the change in attitude from the very top, down through senators such as Edward Kennedy, Congressman Pete King and, indeed, senior business men such as Bill Flynn. There is now a much better understanding of, and support for, the British Government's position, and that is very welcome. All have offered—the President especially, via the Secretary of State—to help in whatever way they can. We are very grateful for that support and we look forward to drawing on it in the future.

Peter Robinson: Given the appalling, exclusively republican violence last night and the failure of the republican leadership of Sinn Fein to condemn it, what confidence can the community in Northern Ireland have that Sinn Fein is seeking to make any transition towards democracy and peaceful politics? Does the Secretary of State not recognise that, by requiring inclusive devolution at an Executive level, he puts a veto and a massive bargaining chip into the hands of those very people?

Peter Hain: I share the condemnation and regret of the hon. Gentleman and, I imagine, all his colleagues concerning the violent disorder in the Ardoyne area last night. There is no question but that that should not have happened, and it cannot be tolerated. As for the future of inclusive Government, he will know that it is our objective, as I have said before, to banish all forms of violence from Northern Ireland politics, and it is in the interests of everybody, including his party, which is now in an important leading position in Northern Ireland, that we get all the parties round the Executive table, sharing Government.
	The activity in the Ardoyne area last night contrasted, I might add, with the activity in the morning, which was almost entirely peaceful, as I discussed with the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) over the phone, as did the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), who is responsible for security. That regrettable and unacceptable violence was an isolated incident in a marching season of about 3,000 parades which were overwhelmingly peaceful. There have been only a handful of serious incidents. I look to the model of Londonderry; the people of Derry got together and found a way through to a process in which the Orangemen were able to parade in accordance with their historic traditions, and at the same time the community felt comfortable with that. Dialogue is the way forward on all these things.

Eddie McGrady: During the Government's talks towards devolution with the various parties in the past number of months, what assurances has the Secretary of State, first, given the Democratic Unionist party on the composition of the membership of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, which is due for revision in the autumn? Secondly, what assurances has he given Sinn Fein on changes in the structure of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in view of the fact that the Patten report commissioned on policing in Northern Ireland has been well nigh fully implemented?

Peter Hain: I do not think that it is a question of giving any particular assurance to individual parties. It is a question of finding the best way forward for the future of the PSNI, carrying into effect the recommendations of the Patten report. The recent report of the oversight commissioner showed that some two thirds of those recommendations have been successfully carried out and implemented. That shows that the PSNI is not only making tremendous progress in normalising policing in Northern Ireland—I pay tribute to the Chief Constable—but in some respects becoming an example for other parts of the world that have had conflicts. As we move forward on the Policing Board, we need to do so sensibly. I am certainly consulting all parties, including the hon. Gentleman's, which plays such an important role and continues to do so.

Andrew MacKay: Although it must be right for the Secretary of State to make it absolutely clear that parties associated with violence and criminality cannot play a part in devolved Administration in the Province, does he accept that they cannot hold the democratic process to ransom and that if they do not completely renounce violence and criminality there has to be a point at which we proceed with devolved Administration without them?

Peter Hain: No individual party and especially no individual group can hold anybody to ransom in Northern Ireland—certainly not the Secretary of State or this Government. We need to find a way forward. We await the statement that has been promised by the IRA, and it needs to be crystal clear that paramilitary activity and criminality has been banished and that that is verifiable, so that we all know that what has been promised—if it is promised—is delivered on the ground.

Mark Durkan: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the model that he referred to in Derry is an important and valuable one? It was first initiated in dialogue convened many years ago by John Hume as MP, brought forward by mayors of the city and most importantly in recent years taken forward by a credible non-partisan community interest such as the chamber of commerce. That is the lesson for us all. Will the Secretary of State demonstrate his confidence in the prospects for restoring the institutions—not just the devolved institutions, but all those of the agreement—by indicating that temporary direct rule will not take long-term structural and strategic decisions such as on water charges, rating policy and outcomes of the review of public administration?

Peter Hain: I cannot promise the latter, because we need to govern. We want to see the hon. Gentleman, DUP Members and all those who have been elected to the Assembly producing circumstances in which an Executive are up and running—hopefully with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr.   Robinson) as able Ministers running Northern Ireland, as they were before. That is what we want, but we will not postpone decisions that are in the interests of Northern Ireland.
	I very much applaud the hon. Gentleman's role, and that of John Hume before him, in the situation in Londonderry. That model showed that the people of Derry could come together despite their historic differences through dialogue and with the Parades Commission. That is a model for how everybody should resolve these tensions and problems, and let us hope that that lesson is learned for next year too.

David Lidington: May I ask the Secretary of State to pass on to the Chief Constable sympathy and support from, I am sure, the entire House to the police officers who were injured in Belfast while carrying out their duties on behalf of everyone in Northern Ireland yesterday evening? Does the Secretary of State believe that it would be unacceptable for Ministers serving in a devolved Executive in Northern Ireland to refuse to recognise the authority and legitimacy of the courts and the police?

Peter Hain: In the context of the devolution of policing and criminal justice—something that we would like to see in future years if possible—that is absolutely imperative, otherwise how credible would devolution be and how could it possibly operate? That, however, is in the future. I very much welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the police officers who were injured at Ardoyne. I believe that more than 60 were injured, a few of them seriously. Of course, our sympathies are with them—they did a very good job in very provocative and difficult circumstances.

David Lidington: The Secretary of State will know that the constitution of the Provisional IRA asserts that the IRA army council is the lawful Government of the entire island of Ireland. Does he therefore agree that part of any IRA response, which we are awaiting, should include a commitment to change its constitution and that statement of objectives so that it is clear that the republican movement accepts the legitimacy of the institutions on both sides of the border? If such a statement and change are not forthcoming, we are at risk of ending up with what the leader of the Irish Labour party recently described as a "weasel-worded fudge".

Peter Hain: Words matter a great deal, and the suggestion of a "weasel-worded fudge" is not acceptable. Words matter, but actions matter even more. Across the spectrum, the people of Northern Ireland, having experienced Castlereagh, Stormontgate, the Northern bank robbery, the grisly murder of Robert McCartney, and the whole catalogue of events that have been well documented by the Independent Monitoring Commission such as punishment beatings and the rest of it, will want to know that all that activity has been shut down. That is the important thing. If we can reach that position, as I very much hope we can, Northern Ireland can move forward in the way that we all want.

Punishment Beatings

Andrew Selous: How many punishment beatings there were in the Province in the latest period for which figures are available.

Shaun Woodward: The total number of punishment beatings in Northern Ireland, which are usually referred to as "paramilitary-style attacks" and consist of both shootings and assaults, for this year is 109. That is 23 fewer than for the same period last year but, of course, any level of paramilitary activity is too much.

Andrew Selous: But is the Minister aware that the  Independent Monitoring Commission figures underestimate considerably the true number of those assaults, because the victims are often far too frightened to report them for fear of further reprisals? People on the estates that are most affected say that the problem is worse   than it has ever been. Does he agree that it is incumbent on the leaders of all communities in Northern Ireland, including the hon. Members for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) and for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) to pledge and work publicly to eradicate those beatings and other assaults?

Shaun Woodward: I think that everybody wants a reduction in intimidation and assaults, and we want everyone to co-operate in encouraging people to come forward. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right that the figures are an underestimation of the number of assaults that take place. The consequences of those assaults are unbearable for the victims and the families, and we will do everything that we can to encourage a situation in which people who are subject to those disgraceful attacks have the confidence to come forward in future and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Adrian Bailey: The tragic events surrounding the death of Robert McCartney demonstrate that many paramilitaries see themselves as the law enforcement agencies in their communities. What are we doing to assist the legitimate law enforcement agencies in the Province?

Shaun Woodward: We are doing everything we can to assist the legitimate law enforcement agencies, which includes making it clear that we do not tolerate in any shape or form paramilitary activity, punishment beatings or criminality. I remind the House that the Secretary of State has set a clear objective—that in order to make any progress, there must be a definitive end to paramilitary activity and criminality. That stands and will continue to stand.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister clarify what additional support the Government are prepared to give to community restorative justice schemes, such as the IMPACT scheme in the North Down constituency, in an effort to reduce and indeed eliminate paramilitary-style beatings?

Shaun Woodward: I am assured by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has responsibility for criminal justice, that we are looking at such proposals, including in the hon. Lady's constituency. We are taking her advice on board and hope to be able to report to her shortly.

Lorely Burt: Further to the details contained in the most recent IMC report, can the Minister update the House on the level of ongoing paramilitary involvement in other kinds of criminal and organisational activity, and tell us what action he proposes to take to combat that?

Shaun Woodward: In addressing paramilitary activity, one of the most important organisations that have been put in place is the Organised Crime Task Force, which I chair. This year we were able to report—obviously, this relates to paramilitary activity as well—that 28 top-level organised crime gangs were disrupted or dismantled. We recovered assets totalling nearly £12 million, which were restrained or confiscated. Nearly £10 million worth of drugs and counterfeit goods worth nearly £7 million were seized. We have a programme for next year that will include tackling illegal fuel by a scheme to tighten petrol licensing and more work on the private security industry, which the paramilitaries have tried to infiltrate. We will have a strengthened response to illegal dumping and we will safeguard charities from abuse by establishing a Northern Ireland charity commissioner.

Laurence Robertson: The whole House would condemn violence from wherever it comes, including from both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland. The Minister is aware that much   criminality exists in the Province—mafia-style criminality, aimed at financing the activities of the IRA-Sinn Fein and the activity aimed at control of the streets on the so-called loyalist side. This criminality makes the peace process extremely difficult. What measures can be taken to end such mafia-style operations in the Province?

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman is right to speak about the dangers of criminality operating in the Province. It would be impossible for us to proceed with any negotiations if we were not able to put on the table the definitive demand for an end to paramilitary activity and criminality. We have increased resources for the police, the Assets Recovery Agency and all the agencies, intelligence communities included, which are working extremely hard and extremely effectively to deliver an effective response to bring those perpetrating these crimes to justice and to stop those trying to organise crime being successful.

Political Situation

Rosie Cooper: If he will make a statement on the outcome of his recent meetings with political parties in Northern Ireland on the political situation in Northern Ireland.

Peter Hain: My meetings with all the Northern Ireland political parties have been extremely useful and I hope to intensify this process.

Rosie Cooper: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no single party in Northern Ireland has the right of veto over the peace process?

Peter Hain: Indeed. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, acknowledge her strong and long interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland, and look forward to working with her. We want to get parties working together, not vetoing or seeking to veto efforts to take Northern Ireland forward. We will not allow that to happen. I hope my hon. Friend will be reassured by that.

William McCrea: I trust that the House will not be taken in by the IRA leadership's weasel words about the recent bombings in London—the last bomb to explode in London was planted by the IRA, and its leadership has never condemned that event. Has the Secretary of State asked the IRA-Sinn Fein leadership what it did with the proceeds of the Northern bank robbery? A colleague of the Justice Minister in the Irish Republic has said that Adams and McGuinness were instrumental in organising that robbery.

Peter Hain: All parties, including Sinn Fein, have condemned the London atrocities. On the Northern bank robbery, the investigations conducted by the PSNI and the security services are still continuing, and some progress has been made. We hope that those investigations will be successful.

Alasdair McDonnell: In the next round of talks, will the Secretary of State pick up some of the wider issues such as the environment, unemployment and the business alliance's recent ideas? In addition to residual unemployment, underemployment is a major concern, and perhaps it will increase with the withdrawal of peace funding and other moneys.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is right to say that we must continue to dedicate our energy to ensuring that more jobs are created in Northern Ireland, but he also knows that Northern Ireland has more jobs than at any time inits history under this Labour Government. Unemployment has more than halved, but the level of economic inactivity, which is one of the highest in the United Kingdom, is worrying. We will continue to work with everybody, including those in business circles, to ensure that Northern Ireland has full employment and a competitive economy that can withstand future global pressures.

Belfast Agreement

Andrew Robathan: What recent assessment he has made of Sinn Fein-IRA's intentions to abide by the terms of the Belfast agreement.

David Hanson: The Government await the IRA's response to the April statement by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), which called for the organisation to pursue its aims through purely political and democratic activity, as demanded by the terms of the Belfast agreement. I hope that the response will shortly provide credible, verifiable and definitive commitments to that end.

Andrew Robathan: The Secretary of State said that Sinn Fein has condemned atrocities that it committed. Can we cease the fiction that Sinn Fein and the IRA are anything other than a bunch of terrorists whom we cannot trust? Seven years after the Belfast agreement, we should understand that we cannot appease a bunch of terrorists, and we should cease doing so.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman has heard the statements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers, and he should recognise that the Government's paramount objective is to end criminality and paramilitary activity. That is the purpose of the process, and we will work to that end. When the IRA makes a statement, the Government are committed to ensuring that we have verifiable, positive proof that paramilitary and criminal activity have ended. That is the Government's objective.

Sammy Wilson: In a month in which the McCartney sisters have indicated that they are leaving Short Strand because of IRA intimidation, and on the day after Gerry Adams and other leading Sinn Fein members were seen at the forefront of a riot in which unprovoked attacks were made on Orangemen in north Belfast, does the Minister believe that there is any hope of IRA-Sinn Fein and its political leadership adopting exclusively democratic and peaceful means? If not, why does he insist that those political leaders should be included in the Government in Northern Ireland?

David Hanson: As I have said, the Government's prime objective is to ensure that we end criminal and paramilitary activity. I pay tribute to the McCartney sisters and their courageous behaviour in Belfast. We must end the murders, the shootings and the beatings, which are not acceptable in a democratic society. It is our duty to try to reintroduce devolved Government, which is both our objective and the purpose of discussions that take place in Government every day of the week. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the House come to order?

Unemployment

David Anderson: If he will make a statement on levels of unemployment in Northern Ireland.

Angela Smith: A strong and stable economy and policies such as the new deal have led to unemployment falling by more than 50 per cent. Seasonally adjusted figures from the labour force survey for the period March to May 2005 estimate that 38,000 people are unemployed in Northern Ireland and that the unemployment rate is 4.9 per cent.

David Anderson: I thank the Minister for that positive response. Does she agree that the proposals for public service reform could have an impact on the level and conditions of employment in Northern Ireland? Does she agree that early and positive meetings with trade unions in Northern Ireland would commit to full implementation of the Warwick agreement, as agreed in the manifesto, in Northern Ireland?

Angela Smith: My hon. Friend has considerable experience and a good track record on these issues. I assure him that I regularly meet the trade unions, particularly on areas of public service reform. The Warwick agreement was very wide and there are different legislation issues in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, I give him an absolute commitment that as we take forward matters that impact on public sector employees we will want to ensure that workers in Northern Ireland are not left behind. I guarantee that I will meet the trade unions on this issue.

Iris Robinson: Will the Minister indicate what steps she is taking to replace the thousands of jobs lost by those in my constituency who were employed in manufacturing? Will she spell out what initiatives Invest Northern Ireland is engaged in to attract jobs into Strangford?

Angela Smith: We have several initiatives. Invest Northern Ireland has worked very hard with employers looking to bring in investment. The Bombardier initiative will have an impact across Northern Ireland in providing jobs. It is important that when we work with Invest Northern Ireland and small businesses in providing training and skills—I have met a number of people undertaking such programmes—we ensure that everybody in Northern Ireland can share in the prosperity as we continue on the track of providing employment.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Keith Vaz: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 13 July.

Tony Blair: I am sure that the whole House will join me in continuing to send our deepest sympathy to the families of the victims of last Thursday's attacks, who must be suffering appalling distress at this time. They are in our thoughts and prayers.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Keith Vaz: There has been a profound sense of unity in Britain since the events of last Thursday. The Prime Minister has rightly said that he will use every effort to ensure that the perpetrators and planners of these terrorist attacks are brought to justice, and he will have our full support in doing so. Is he aware that in the past seven days there have been more than 100 reported race hate attacks on members of the British Asian community? Will he ensure that he and his Ministers take every step necessary to bring the perpetrators of these attacks to justice, and that no individual or organisation will be allowed to imperil the diverse and multicultural society that is Britain today and which is the envy of the world?

Tony Blair: I am sure that the whole House will agree with the sentiments that my hon. Friend has outlined and expressed. Perhaps before I come to his point I should say a word of congratulations to our police and security services on the magnificent work that they have done. As I saw for myself when I visited their joint operations, they have in place an extraordinary system that should give people a lot of heart and hope.
	I should also say to the House that the number of confirmed dead still stands at 52. There are some 50 injured in hospital, of whom 12 are in intensive care.
	I would simply say to my hon. Friend that I entirely agree as to what he says in respect of the unity of the country and in condemning utterly any attacks against innocent members of our community.

Michael Howard: I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I join the Prime Minister in expressing our sympathy to those who have suffered such terrible losses, and in the congratulations that he has offered to the police and the security services on the outstanding work that they have carried out following last week's tragic events.
	What we now know is appalling to contemplate. It will take us a long time to come to terms with the fact that these atrocities appear to have been committed by those who were born and brought up in our midst. Does the Prime Minister agree that those responsible for last week's carnage were not acting in the name of Islam but were perverting its teachings? Will he join me and the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) in condemning the attacks that have taken place on mosques? Is it not the case that anyone who reaches for a stone to throw at the window of a mosque and anyone who nurtures resentment against our Muslim community is the enemy of us all, because they would be acting in the way the terrorists want us to act, thus helping them to achieve their objective of dividing us one from another?

Tony Blair: Once again, I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his strong and supportive stance. I believe that it has brought a lot of comfort to people in the country to know that the main political parties are together on the matter. I agree that there will be a sense of profound shock and anxiety in the country about what has happened, and a need and a willingness to act.
	I should like briefly to address four aspects of action that we need to take. First, in accordance with the timetable to publish new anti-terrorism legislation in the autumn, we intend to begin the process of consultation with the other main parties in the next couple of weeks. As we have already said, the legislation will focus on the measures that the police and security services say are necessary. It will focus especially on measures to combat the incitement and instigation of terrorism as well as the acts themselves. Meanwhile, we will use control orders when necessary under existing legislation.
	Secondly, we will look urgently at how we strengthen the procedures to exclude people from entering the United Kingdom who may incite hatred or act contrary to the public good, and at how we deport such people, if they have come here, more easily. However, again, we want to consult fully on any measures or procedures undertaken.
	We all know that security measures alone will not tackle the problem. We are dealing not with an isolated criminal act but with an extreme and evil ideology, the roots of which lie in a perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam. Thirdly, therefore, as was urged upon me this morning by our Muslim Members of Parliament, whose leadership and good sense I praise, we will seek to debate the right way forward in combating that evil in the Muslim community with Muslim leaders. We intend to begin that process immediately. In the end, only the community itself can take on and defeat it, but we can all help and facilitate. We will do so, and I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has kindly indicated his willingness to participate in such a dialogue. I hope that other leaders will do so, too.
	Fourthly, we are talking to other nations, Muslim and non-Muslim, about how to mobilise internationally the moderate and true voice of Islam. Such action is taking place around the world, but we need to ascertain how it can be better co-ordinated, publicised and driven through.
	Meanwhile, and finally, I ask for the same measured and calm response from the country that has characterised it since last Thursday. We are considering a small group of extremists. It cannot be ignored because of the danger it poses, but it should not define Muslims in Britain, who are overwhelmingly law-abiding, decent members of our society. We condemn any attacks against them unreservedly.

Michael Howard: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that answer. I welcome his decision to meet the leaders of the Muslim community, and, as he said, I have accepted his invitation to join in those meetings. We also stand ready to work through, with the Government, their legislative proposals and, more generally, the security implications of what we now know.
	Does the Prime Minister agree that the peril that we face extends far beyond our shores, has taken the lives of countless Muslims and is part of a criminal conspiracy to destroy our shared way of life? What scope does he envisage for greater international action to deal with the terrible danger that we face?

Tony Blair: Again, I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is my intention later today to issue a list, which we have been able to put together pretty quickly, of different attacks that have taken place round the world. It excludes attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan, but includes those virtually from the attack on the World Trade Centre in February 1993 onwards. People have been able to see that this process stretches back many years. It encompasses many different countries and thousands of people have been victims of it.
	It is heartening, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman implies, that there is a sense in the international community in the Muslim world that this issue has to be taken on. I know of conferences that have either just taken place or are taking place in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, for example. Such countries are now focusing clearly on how the ground may be recaptured for moderate Islam, which is the true voice of Islam, as we know. It is our intention to see what help and support we can give. We are having discussions not only with those Muslim countries but with others as well to determine how we can get real international support and an understanding of how important the issue is, so that, in the countries where the roots of this sometimes grow, through twisted teaching and through the violence that is taught to young people at a very early age, we can pull up this evil ideology by its roots. It is important, particularly after the shock of discovering that those who perpetrated this were born and brought up in this country, that we recognise the worldwide dimension of this, and the need therefore to tackle it internationally.

Shahid Malik: Does the Prime Minister share my assessment that yesterday's events represent the most profound challenge yet faced by the British Muslim community? Condemnation is not enough, and British Muslims must confront the voices of evil head on, as I believe they are prepared to do. Does my right hon. Friend share my belief that, rather than dividing us, these evil voices will serve to unite the British people in our resolve to deal with them? This is a defining moment for this country. Does the Prime Minister share my confidence that the Muslim community and the wider community will play their role, and that they are equal to the challenge? I can assure him that my constituency of Dewsbury will not be found wanting in that regard.

Tony Blair: I thank my hon. Friend for that; it is particularly important that he has stood up in the House today and said it. It will give heart to people not only in the Muslim community but beyond it in this country.

Charles Kennedy: I too reiterate the shared sense of deep sympathy for those suffering distress as a result of the loss of their loved ones last week. May I also add my voice to the congratulations to the police on the fine work that they have done? We all undoubtedly share a sense of national dismay that these terrorists were British, and it is incumbent on all of us to keep stressing the fact that the vast majority of British Muslims totally condemn the bombings that took place in London last week. It certainly makes sense now for the three party leaderships to stand as one with the Muslim community on that basis, and in so doing, for us all to demonstrate together that this is an issue not for members of the Muslim community alone, but for all of us who share this country and who share British citizenship with them.

Tony Blair: Obviously I agree with those sentiments. It is important that we all stand together at this moment.

Charles Kennedy: Following what the Prime Minister said in the House on Monday, I thank him for amplifying today that he will consider on a cross-party basis any further anti-terrorism legislation, including measures covering acts preparatory to terrorism, that might be brought before the House. As part of our presidency of the European Union, the Home Secretary is today very sensibly chairing a special meeting of his opposite numbers in Brussels, at which he hopes to reach agreement on the retention of e-mail and phone data as part of any anti-terrorism legislation. Leaving aside the merits of what the Home Secretary is pursuing, how confident are the Government that he will have the support of the other European Governments, and that the service providers will have the capacity to store the data that will be required?

Tony Blair: I am confident that other European countries, the majority of which face the same type of threat, will be supportive. I am sure that they will be. The exchange and retention of data are a very important part of dealing with the issue. As I saw at the joint operations centre, it is absolutely vital that we receive co-operation from intelligence services across the board to defeat such terrorism. Links are seldom confined to one country—wherever those who engage in terrorist acts come from, they have almost always had strong links with the outside world.

Robert Flello: I, too, commend and praise the police and security services for their swift and effective identification of the evil extremists who brought death and misery to our streets last week. Will the Prime Minister join me, however, in condemning those right-wing extremists in the British National party, in Barking and elsewhere, who are cynically and sickly trying to exploit people's tragedy, anguish and understandable anger over the barbaric attack in order to score cheap but dangerous political points? Does not the British National party shame itself and slur the word "British"?

Tony Blair: I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. If we are right in saying that these terrorist attacks are an attack on our way of life, it is most important to say that part of our way of life is tolerance and respect for other people of different races, religions and faiths. It is therefore particularly revolting for anyone to try to exploit these attacks for the purpose of racism.

Julian Brazier: The tube terrorists were British, but does the Prime Minister agree that many of those who organise terrorist training, build terrorist bombs and preach a message of hate from British pulpits have come in from abroad? Will he further agree that it is both unfortunate and unacceptable that Parliament should be forbidden by the highest court in this country from distinguishing between its handling of British citizens on the one hand, and the arrangements that it makes for foreign terror suspects who claim asylum in this country on the other?

Tony Blair: It is important that we recognise that this issue has a series of different dimensions. One dimension is of those abroad who try to instil and inculcate this extremist ideology and fanaticism in people, and another is of people who come here to preach it. We must deal with every single aspect of it. That is also a reason why the idea of developing electronic borders, which will allow us to track more carefully people coming into our country, which we are undertaking now and which will take some time to build up because of the technology involved, will be essential in the medium term to protect the integrity of our borders.

Brian H Donohoe: My right hon. Friend will be aware that our right hon. Friend the Chancellor told European Finance Ministers yesterday that they must step up their actions to seize terrorist assets—a move, I think, that will be supported by the whole House. Those same sentiments, however, were expressed following the terrorist attacks in Madrid last year. What action is the EU taking now to ensure that all member states have in place the powers to freeze the assets of those terrorist organisations?

Tony Blair: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said yesterday, we have taken action against some 45 different individuals and groups to freeze their assets. He rightly said yesterday that there can be no hiding place for the terrorists and those who finance them. It is fair to say that co-operation has increased tremendously across Europe over the past few years. In particular, I commend the help that the Spanish police and authorities have been giving us. It is also true that that now needs to be stepped up, because the threat, as people can see, is very real.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I associate myself fully with the expressions of condolence and sympathy from the Prime Minister earlier, and on behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party fully support the Government in their efforts to bring to justice the awful men and, I presume, women who are responsible for the attack?
	On an entirely separate matter, which is quite urgent, will the Prime Minister intervene personally to alleviate the problems of many licensees in Wales who have availed themselves of the right, under the Welsh Language Act 1993, to submit forms through the medium of the Welsh language? The deadline is 6 August and no such forms exist. Is the Prime Minister not a little discomfited that 12 years since the passing of that Act, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, of all Departments, has no Welsh language scheme? Does he not now agree that there is a need for a proper, new and robust Welsh language Act?

Tony Blair: I will look into what the hon. Gentleman says, but I understand from my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Culture, Media and Sport that urgent discussions are taking place on this issue.

Michael Connarty: While echoing the sentiments expressed on terrorism, may I, too, turn to another topic? Is the Prime Minister aware of the continuing concern of hard-working public servants, particularly teachers and local government employees, that the Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2004, which were laid before the House last year, have not yet been revoked? Will the Prime Minister give the House and those public servants an assurance that the regulations will be revoked as soon as possible, that no changes will be made to the pension rights of public servants and teachers until full negotiation takes place with the public sector trade unions, and that, should we get rid of final-salary pensions and bring in pensions based on average earnings, that arrangement will be binding on this House and on Ministers of the Crown?

Tony Blair: I understand that a statement about changes to the regulatory scheme is being made today. I entirely agree, as do all the stakeholders involved, that local authority employees should have a good quality, stable and viable pension scheme. The question is how to do that and how to get the balance right between cost of provision to employers and to the taxpayer, and the value of the benefits to scheme members who pay fixed contributions. That is exactly the issue that we are addressing in the statement later today. I know, however, that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's tripartite committee is ensuring the full involvement of local authority employers and trade unions. I doubt whether we will be able to satisfy everybody on this issue, but we are doing our level best to find the right balance.

Bob Spink: My constituent, Joseph, a little boy with complex learning and medical problems, was not suited to mainstream education. He was ostracised by other children, became very poorly and at the age of only eight, he tried to kill himself in order to escape his misery. He is now at Cedar Hall special school, where he is thriving in every possible way. He is happy now. Does the Prime Minister think that special schools are worth keeping? Does he think that the Government's audit of special schools is serious, given that they are being closed, and will he look into the funding of Cedar Hall special school and ensure that it is retained?

Tony Blair: Of course I value special schools. The question of whether to close a particular school or how to make such provision is decided through the local authority, and I assume that the hon. Gentleman's local authority—[Hon. Members: "Tory"]—is Essex county council, so he can make representations to it about how provision in the area works. But let me make absolutely clear my own view, which is that there will be circumstances in which the right thing for the children is to integrate them in mainstream schooling; however, I totally agree that, equally, there will be situations in which that is quite the wrong thing to do. Both types of provision have to be available, therefore, but I really do believe that the best mix is better determined locally, rather than nationally.

Brian Iddon: Here in London on 26 May, my right hon. Friend made a speech during which he said that Europe
	"often seems to want to regulate too heavily without sufficient cause".
	He quoted the food supplements directive as an example. In the light of yesterday's very disappointing ruling from the European Court of Justice, and bearing in mind the fact that Britain now holds the EU presidency, will my right hon. Friend be making representations in Europe so that we can continue to sell safe and popular food supplements on the shelves of British food stores?

Tony Blair: We will certainly do our best to ensure that that is the case. I can tell my hon. Friend that I understand that the Food Standards Agency has given derogations to some 500 different substances. I would also say that it is important that any control regime should be extremely light touch, and we are doing our level best to make sure that that is the case. In addition, there is the issue of maximum dosages, which it is also important for us to handle in a way that accords with common sense rather than a somewhat exaggerated view of the dangers.

David Evennett: Our NHS is obviously the envy of the world and we should congratulate all those who worked so hard last week in the wake of the terrorist activity. Is the Prime Minister aware that many of the hospital trusts in south-east London are overspent and running out of money? Why does he think that is happening; what is he planning to do about it; and will he reassure patients that services will not be cut?

Tony Blair: It is worth pointing out that the actual amount of deficit compared with the amount of money going into the health service is very small indeed. In fact, the deficits are far below what they were in the mid-1990s, for example, and I would like to point that out to the hon. Gentleman. In addition, as a result of the extra investment in the NHS, waiting lists in his and other areas have come down, as have waiting times: more people are being treated and more people are being treated better. Without re-running the arguments of a few months ago, it is surely the case that we have got the NHS improving only as a result of the extra investment plus the change. The worst thing that we could do, of course, would be to reverse those policies.

Neil Turner: The events of last Thursday overshadowed the elation that we all felt on Wednesday when it was announced that London would host the 2012 Olympic games. One of the reasons why we were awarded those games is that we stressed that they would be for the benefit not just of this country but of the whole world. Will my right hon. Friend share his initial thoughts on how he intends to ensure that the benefits of the games are spread to places such as Wigan and, indeed, throughout the whole country?

Tony Blair: I have to be careful about what I promise my hon. Friend in relation to the Olympic facilities. We are determined to ensure that the legacy of the Olympic games will accrue not just to the benefit of London, though a whole area of London will be regenerated. As a result of our success, there will be sports facilities all over the country. One of the reasons why our bid was so strong and ultimately successful is that we made it clear that the Olympic games of 2012 would leave a legacy not just for the Olympic movement, but for our country and for sport in our country. That was one of the principal reasons that swung the bid our way.

Christopher Chope: The Prime Minister's answer on the vitamins directive simply will not wash with the 1 million people who signed a petition against it. Does the Prime Minister remember that on 26 May he described this directive, albeit belatedly, as
	"unnecessary interference . . . wholly out of proportion to the risks run."?
	If the Prime Minister is not to be regarded as impotent, will he tell us what action he is taking in that regard?

Tony Blair: I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was about to suggest a vitamin! What is important here is to make sure that, in respect of existing legislation, things are done in a very light-touch way, which we will do. However, there is still a further stage, which is connected with the business of maximum dosage. That is where it is important to ensure that we do not end up with a situation in which the action taken is wholly disproportionate. That is what we will be working towards.

John Denham: While I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the fight against terrorism, will he acknowledge that during the last few years there has been a series of reports that have set out both the symptoms and the causes of alienation among Muslim young people? While it would be crass in the extreme to suggest a direct cause-and-effect link between the two, is it not the case that extremists fish for a few vulnerable people in that pool of alienation? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House today that he will look again at the evidence of the challenges facing young Muslim people and assess the response that is necessary not just from within the Muslim community, but from the majority community as a whole?

Tony Blair: What my right hon. Friend says is right, and that is precisely what we will do. The point that I was trying to make earlier is the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik) also made very well. It is that there is sensible leadership in the Muslim community that is prepared to stand up and be counted and take on the extremists. It is important that those people do that, but my right hon. Friend is right to say that it is also important that the rest of us get behind them and support them. We must study the reasons and causes behind what has happened, but I fear that it is not something that can be dealt with just by our country alone. When we look at the network of extremism that now exists right around the world and the means of communication that terrorists have, it is clear that, although we must deal with the problem in our own community, it will not be resolved finally until it is dealt with in every community in which it is incubated. That is what happens: young people get indoctrinated in an extreme and poisonous version—and perversion—of the religion of Islam, but nonetheless we must confront the fact that it exists.

Primary Schools (Reading)

Lee Scott: If he will make funding available for two new primary schools in the London borough of Redbridge.

Tony Blair: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out in his Budget statement, the Government have provided unprecedented investment for primary schools in England. That is part of a total school building programme that is six times as large as it was in 1996–97.

Lee Scott: The residents of Ilford, North and Redbridge will be disappointed by that answer. [Interruption.] Will the Prime Minister please ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to look into this as a matter of urgency?

Tony Blair: Well, if they are disappointed by that, it is hard to imagine what they must have felt like in 1996–97. A major school building and refurbishment programme is under way over the next few years. That is why it is so important that we keep the investment going into our school system, and why it is such a shame that the Opposition voted against it when we proposed it.

BILL PRESENTED

Climate Change

Mr. Michael Meacher, supported by Mr. Tim Yeo, Norman Baker, Mr. John Gummer, Robert Key, Vera Baird, Joan Ruddock, Emily Thornberry, Tony Lloyd, Andrew George, Mr. Martin Horwood, and Mr. Mike Weir, presented a Bill to combat climate change by setting annual targets for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions until 2050; to place duties on the Prime Minister regarding the reporting on and achievement of those targets; to specify procedures to be followed if the targets are not met; to specify certain functions of and provide certain powers to Members of Parliament with regard to ensuring carbon dioxide emissions are reduced; to set sectoral reduction targets and targets for energy efficiency, the generation of energy from renewable sources, combined heat and power and microgeneration; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 March 2006, and to be printed. [Bill 43].

Green Belt Reform

Mark Prisk: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the Green Belt; and for connected purposes.
	It was in 1955 that the then Government first encouraged local authorities to establish green belts around our main cities. Over the past 50 years, green belts have become the best known and the most popular of this country's planning policies, yet today they are under greater pressure for development than ever before.
	Every year, 2,400 acres of green belt are developed on. In my constituency, 1,500 acres are under threat from one development. My Bill would reform our green belts, re-establish their permanence and thereby encourage much needed urban renewal. I am delighted to say that my Bill has secured support from hon. Members of all the main political parties in this House. My aim is simple: to ensure that green belt policy continues to shape the environment and our communities for the next 50 years.
	Despite what some people may assume, green belt land makes up just 13 per cent. of England. The largest single example with which hon. Members will be familiar is the metropolitan green belt, which has prevented London from sprawling right across the south-east. It has protected thousands of acres of countryside and preserved the rural habitat for many thousands of indigenous wildlife species. In many ways, however, the green belt is more important for the way that it shapes our towns and cities by providing natural and permanent limits to them. That limit has stimulated a myriad urban renewal schemes, by encouraging the reuse and regeneration of neglected city land. By creating that natural boundary to our cities, we have been able to prevent the ugly, urban sprawl that sadly characterises some foreign cities—a sprawl that sucks the life out of city centres and generates needless commuter journeys every working day.
	For example, without a green belt, Birmingham would have spread out across the Meriden gap to merge with Coventry and elsewhere with Kidderminster, Lichfield and Tamworth. The green belt in the midlands has encouraged the reuse of brownfield land and helped those communities to keep their individual character. I maintain that green belts put the heart back into our cities, by stimulating their renewal.
	Unfortunately, our green belts are today shrinking in the face of enormous pressure for development. The latest figures show that since 1997, 284 acres have been developed in the south-west; more than 1,000 acres have been built on in the south-east; and, every year, an area of more than 15 square miles is developed on green belt land. That is the equivalent of the city of Lincoln.
	What has gone wrong? After all, there has always been development pressure from developers and investors, but they are now targeting green belt sites far more. What has changed? The answer lies in a subtle but significant change in policy. Two years ago, the Government published a new set of planning guidance. Instead of reaffirming the permanence of land already designated, they focused on the total acreage. Thus the Deputy Prime Minster has said that he would
	"maintain or increase green-belt land in every region in England."—[Official Report, 5 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 275.]
	However, that differs from the original policy. In a county such as Hertfordshire, it means that land can be released for development if land elsewhere in the region—near Peterborough, for example—is rebadged as green belt. As hon. Members will realise, that entirely undermines the idea of a permanent green belt that shapes a city. Indeed, what it leaves us with is more like an elastic band, something that is continually stretched as more and more development is forced in. The irony is that the Government's plans for urban renewal are undermined, because developers and investors know only too well that all they need to do is to wait for the greenfield sites to be developed and ignore the awkward neglected city sites.
	It is time to reverse that policy change and get rid of the elastic band. I wish to re-establish, in law, the permanent character of green belt land and, with it, the   benefits of urban renewal and protection of the countryside. My Bill would seek to reverse the changes of 2003, to make the policy site-specific again, and to ensure that the boundaries of green belt land are clear and permanent. More land could then be designated, but that would not mean that other land could be released for development as a quid pro quo. The result would be to strengthen significantly the protection of our countryside and to help to shape our towns and cities. In a way, it would encourage the often ingenious minds of developers and investors to think how they could reuse a neglected site or develop land that has been overlooked. It would also end much of the current green field speculation in which people are being conned by the unscrupulous, who market plots of green belt land for tens of thousands of pounds on the internet.
	Fifty years on from their conception, green belts are still the most effective and popular means we have of protecting our countryside and renewing and revitalising our towns. Green belts have stopped urban sprawl; kept neighbouring towns independent; and have given us all close to hand the open countryside that is so vital to our health and wellbeing.
	We need to reform our green belt policy, to restore permanent boundaries and character, and I am delighted to be supported by Members not just from my own party but on both sides of the House, not least because they hope and believe, as I do, that by reforming our green belts we can ensure that they continue to shape our communities and the environment for another generation.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mark Prisk, Colin Challen, Dr. John Pugh, Andrew Selous, Mr.   Robert Syms, Mr. Andrew Lansley, Mr. Mark Lancaster, Anne Main, Philip Davies, Mr. James Gray, Mr. Stephen O'Brien and Mr. Edward Vaizey.

Green Belt Reform

Mr. Prisk accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about the Green Belt; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 June, and to be printed [Bill 44].

Business of the House

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Leader of the House, it may be helpful if I say something about the arrangement of today's business. If the Leader of the House's business motion—item 3 on the Order Paper—is agreed to, we will begin a single debate covering motions 4 to 40. It will be in order in that debate to discuss the general question, how the House selects the membership of its Committees, as well as the particular proposals in the motions. At the end of four and a half hours the Chair will put the question on each of the motions in turn.
	A notice of my selection of amendments is available in the No Lobby and the Vote Office in the normal way. When we reach a motion to which an amendment has been selected, the occupant of the Chair will invite the Member concerned to move the amendment formally, and the House will decide first on the amendment and then on the motion, amended or not as may be the case.
	When all the questions on motions 4 to 40 have been disposed of, the House will begin a separate one and a half hour debate on motions 41 to 44, relating to Standards and Privileges.

Geoff Hoon: Before I move the motion, I mention for the benefit of right hon. and hon. Members that I have arranged for a book of condolence to be placed in the Library and if Members want to sign it, as I hope they will, it is now available.
	I beg to move,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put—
	(a) the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Geoffrey Hoon, Mr Bob Ainsworth and Rosemary McKenna, other than those listed in paragraph (b) of this Order, not later than four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order, and
	(b) the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Geoffrey Hoon and Mr Bob Ainsworth relating to standards and Privileges, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Committee on Standards and Privileges and Standards and Privileges (Nomination) not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first Motion; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
	I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for helpfully summarising my entire speech on the issue so, to save time, I do not intend to repeat it. It is important that we are able to debate the items set out in motions 4 to 40, followed by a separate debate on Standards and Privileges covering motions 41 to 44.
	It is in the interests of the House that we agree the motion swiftly and get on to those important debates. I commend the motion to the House.

Chris Grayling: I thank the Leader of the House for establishing a book of condolence, which is entirely appropriate.
	I do not have much to add to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, except that I am glad that the debate is not being artificially guillotined, as often happens, and that we can have a full debate about a wide range of directly linked issues. Let us get on with the main debate.
	Question put and agreed to.

Committees
	 — 
	Administration Committee

Geoff Hoon: I beg to move,
	That Standing Orders Nos. 139 (Select Committee on Broadcasting) and 142 (Domestic Committees) be repealed and the following be a Standing Order of the House:
	"Administration Committee
	(1) There shall be a select committee, to be called the Administration Committee, to consider the services provided for and by the House and to make recommendations thereon to the House of Commons Commission or to the Speaker. Any such recommendation whose implementation would incur additional expenditure charged to the Estimate for House of Commons: Administration shall also be considered by the Finance and Services Committee.
	(2) The committee shall make rules and give directions to Officers of the House in respect only of such administrative matters as may from time to time be determined by the Speaker or by the House of Commons Commission.
	(3) The committee shall consist of not more than 16 Members, of whom five shall be a quorum.
	(4) The committee shall have power—
	(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time;
	(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference; and
	(c) to communicate its evidence to the House of Commons Commission.
	(5) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee and to delegate to such sub-committees any of the powers delegated to the committee under paragraph (2) above.
	(6) Any such sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time the minutes of their proceedings, and shall have a quorum of three.
	(7) The committee and any sub-committee appointed by it shall have the assistance of the Officers of the House appropriate to the matters under consideration.
	(8) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the Committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider motions 5 to 40.

Geoff Hoon: We have before us in this afternoon's first debate 37 motions that relate to the reappointment of the Select Committees and related matters and to the payment of the Chairmen of Standing and Select Committees. In respect of several motions, explanatory memorandums have been made available in the Vote Office. I hope that they have been of assistance to hon. Members.
	I shall start with the first proposal on the creation of an Administration Committee. The motion provides for the Domestic Committees—the Accommodation and Works, Administration, Catering, Information and Broadcasting Committees—to be replaced by a new, single Administration Committee. I believe that to be a sensible modernising measure. There is a widespread view that the existing structure of the Domestic Committees has become outdated. Convergence in technology makes it no longer appropriate to have separate Broadcasting and Information Committees, for example. There have been occasions when an issue that cuts across more than one Committee has been delayed because the decisions taken by one Committee have had to wait until another Committee has met. A single Committee should allow a more efficient approach, thus ensuring better Member oversight of the services provided throughout the House.

Graham Allen: Before the Leader of the House gets too far into the detail of all these motions, will he address an item of principle? It is the role of the House to create departmental Select Committees, whose role is to hold the Government to account. Does he not feel that it is bordering on the politically corrupt for the Government to have such an important influence on selecting the members of those departmental Select Committees? Will he therefore take the chance, after today's debate, to look again at involving Members on both sides of the House in considering whether we could have a better system, perhaps one that involves the election of the members of departmental Select Committees by their colleagues in the House, rather than one that persists in allowing the very organisation that is meant to be scrutinised to have the right to put Members on to the departmental Select Committees of the House?

Geoff Hoon: I disagree with my hon. Friend, not least because the great strength of our Select Committee system is that it reflects the great strength of our political party system both in the House and in the country. It is a matter for the political parties represented in the House to determine the appropriate allocation of Members to the Select Committees. I do not know whether he was present at the most recent meeting of the parliamentary Labour party, where it was made clear that an inordinate amount of time had been spent on transparently and fairly selecting the Labour party's representation. I obviously cannot speak for other political parties in the House, but his own political party went to a great deal of trouble to ensure that the nominations were in accordance with the principles of the Labour party. In those circumstances, I do not believe that he can complain that proper democratic procedures have not been adopted. Those are the proper democratic procedures of his and my political party.

Nicholas Winterton: May I perhaps come partly to the aid of the Leader of the House? He will be aware that the Modernisation Committee, which I have no doubt he will be chairing shortly, has considered this matter. Although its recommendations were very narrowly defeated in the House, I am confident that the matter will come before the Modernisation Committee again, and I hope that he is happy that it should do so, so that the House can consider the important matter raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).

Geoff Hoon: I am always grateful for all the help that I can get, particularly from such a distinguished source, but it is important that the will of the political parties is reflected in the way in which Select Committees are appointed. I believe that that is carried out with very commendable concern for democracy and the principles of democracy that inform the House.

Gordon Prentice: My friend will know that the parliamentary committee of the parliamentary Labour party decided that people who leave the Government—ex-Ministers—should not seamlessly transfer to take up the chairmanship of Select Committees. Does my friend agree with that?

Geoff Hoon: I have made it quite clear that, as Leader of the House, I am not responsible for the internal workings of the political parties represented in the House. I happen to have information available to me because my membership of the Labour party means that, unlike Opposition Members, I am able to attend such distinguished gatherings. However, the principle is a matter for the Labour party. It is not a matter for the House, and thus not a matter for the Leader of the House.

Bob Spink: While the Leader of the House is indulging in tidying up some of these matters, will he explain exactly why a motion relating to the Science and Technology Committee is not on the Order Paper today so that that Committee can be debated along with the other Committees.

Geoff Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to get to that part of my observations, all will become clear—I hope.

Patrick McLoughlin: Although I do not want to pry too much into the activities of the PLP, we have just been told that it has come to the decision that somehow ex-Ministers cannot automatically chair Select Committees. Does the Leader of the House think that a similar rule should apply so that if Select Committee Chairmen were invited to join the Government, they should refuse?

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. It is important, however, that I do not go beyond my responsibilities to the House as Leader of the House. It is also important that I make a little progress.

Graham Allen: The serious point that I was trying to put to my right hon. Friend was that if the House agrees to some of these motions today, we will have four years to consider the matter before it comes round for decision again. Will he consider whether it will be possible to have a discussion, under either his own auspices or those of the Modernisation Committee, to determine whether we can do this better next time?

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that the Modernisation Committee, once established, will want to consider a range of issues, and that might well prove to be one of them. I know that my hon. Friend will pursue the matter with considerable tenacity, as he has done in the House over many years, so I look forward to receiving a letter in due course.

John Bercow: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to assert to the House that his party has a relatively transparent and democratic means of determining the membership of Select Committees, it is important that the procedure should not be secret. I do not want it to be shrouded in opacity, so will he tell us exactly how the parliamentary Labour party—I am happy to debate my own party's conduct on these matters—determines membership of Select Committees?

Geoff Hoon: This sounds like one of those childhood games of "you show me yours first". It is not necessarily appropriate at this stage to engage in an internal debate about how political parties make decisions. I have dealt with the point already, so it is time for me to move on to deal with the fascinating question of the terms of reference of the new Administration Committee.

Alan Williams: Does the Leader of the House agree that if the whole House were involved in the selection of Committee members, it could work to the disadvantage of scrutiny because the majority in the House could impose the Committees that it wanted on the minority? All parties in the House, especially those in opposition, have the prime responsibility to have as effective a system of scrutiny as possible.

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point and allows me to return to the fascinating discussion into which I was about to enter on the terms of reference of the new Administration Committee. The terms of reference will reflect those of the Domestic Committees, the only significant difference being that the function of the Committee will be to consider services provided by, as well as for, the House, which will explicitly allow it to consider services provided for the public. Improving the way in which the House communicates with the public is a crucial matter that we must address in this Parliament.

Michael Jack: The motion indicates that the Administration Committee will make   recommendations to the House of Commons Commission or the Speaker about services provided. When a Select Committee makes a report to a Government Department, it receives a written reply after a period of time to respond to the points that it raises. Under these arrangements, if the Commission decided not to provide a service that the Administration Committee had identified, would it be a requirement that a written report would have to be produced so that hon. Members would know why their Committee's recommendations had been declined?

Geoff Hoon: There will not be such a requirement, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion could be considered as a part of the important scrutiny work that Select Committees do and the Government's responses to those Committees. I am sure that that procedure ought to followed as good practice.

Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome the formation of the Administration Committee because far too often in the last Parliament we encountered the problem that Committees decided things that had to be referred to other Committees before progress could be made. Will the Leader of the House confirm that if the Administration Committee makes such a report, there will at least be the opportunity to ask questions about why action has not been taken on its recommendations, if that is the case?

Geoff Hoon: We will need to consider that important point after the Administration Committee has been established and has decided its working patterns. There will be changes as a result of amalgamating the Domestic Committees, so we will need to allow a little time to elapse before determining the consequences of having such a unified Committee, rather than the separate Committees that it is intended to replace.

Eric Forth: Exactly in that context, I note that paragraph (6) of motion 4 says that the Administration Committee's Sub-Committees
	"shall have power to send for person, papers and records".
	That power is also given to the Committee itself. Does that mean that the Committee or its Sub-Committees could call members of the Commission to give evidence, precisely to address the point made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin)?

Geoff Hoon: I was at pains to try to ensure that the terms of reference of the new unified Committee reflected the terms of reference of the Domestic Committees. Having not had my current responsibilities during the period in which those Committees existed, I cannot tell the House whether the motion precisely reflects the previous situation—[Interruption.] I am receiving certain indications that perhaps it does not. Nevertheless, it follows on logically from what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) pointed out that the motion gives the Administration Committee extensive powers to call for those persons and papers that it requires. No doubt that will be one of the consequential changes that may follow the establishment of this important House Committee.

Adam Afriyie: As a relatively new Member, I am aware that modernisation needs to take place on many Committees. However, I am surprised by how long it has taken to appoint hon. Members to Committees. Is the Leader of the House also concerned about the delay in appointing Committee members?

Geoff Hoon: I intend to deal with that point when I reach the part of my speech—if we ever get there—on proposals for the appointment of Select Committees. I have been asked about the matter on several occasions in the House and have made it clear, and repeated today, the importance of the role of political parties. If my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is to be satisfied in his understandable concern about the need to respect democratic principles in the selection of Select Committee members, it is important to deal with such matters thoroughly. I have indicated that that has been the case for the Labour party. Thoroughness takes time, but that thorough approach has allowed the Committees to be appointed before the summer recess, which was an undertaking that I gave to the House, and allowed political parties to be involved in the necessary democratic process for the selection of their candidates. That seems to me to be a perfectly proper compromise—

Graham Allen: rose—

Geoff Hoon: I sense that I am risking reopening this debate.

Graham Allen: I am delighted that the Leader of the House has moved the debate on. As he mentioned my name, I felt obliged to make a contribution on this issue. To answer the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), the process has been relatively fast compared with previous occasions when it sometimes took six or seven months before Committees were set up. The way forward is, again, to remove the power from the Government and the alternative Government, and make it part of Mr. Speaker's duties to convene Select Committees within a given period after a general election. The delay, which is to the benefit only of the Government, would not then occur. Members of Parliament would take control of their own Committees.

Geoff Hoon: I knew that I had made a mistake earlier on, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing the debate.
	I shall conclude that debate by dealing with the fifth motion on the Order Paper, which concerns the Finance and Services Committee. The motion makes minor changes to the order of reference of that Committee consequential to the establishment of the new Administration Committee. It also reflects changes in how we refer to the House Administration and the administration estimate.
	Motion 5 modifies the operation of the two-Parliament rule for Select Committee Chairmen. Standing Order No. 122A was agreed in May 2002, following the recommendation of the Modernisation Committee. It was not popular with all Members—I recognise that some members of the Liaison Committee, in particular, felt that limiting their term served to reduce the effectiveness of Select Committees—but the majority of the House felt that there was merit in a degree of turnover: Select Committees should not become the established responsibilities of a few senior Members.
	The purpose of the motion today is not to reopen that debate but to ensure that the rule achieves its intended purpose. When the House agreed the rule, it agreed an amendment adding the words
	"or a continuous period of eight years, whichever is the greater"
	in case of very short Parliaments, as in 1974, for example. As a result, I believe unintended by the House, a Chairman who has served for two full Parliaments could be re-elected for a third if the date of his re-election fell just within eight years of his first election. The proposed change would mean that if a Chairman were elected for a third term, the chairmanship would cease at the expiry of eight years from first election.

Gordon Prentice: What happens if the terms of reference or remit of a Select Committee are changed to reflect the departmental configuration of Whitehall? Is it a new Committee?

Geoff Hoon: It is clear that it is a new Committee, and the term would then begin with the commencement of that new Committee.

Andrew MacKinlay: It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not think that the proposal is fair. I would like the Leader of the House to consider my amendment, which would mean that those people who were incumbent Chairmen as at the general election would not be disadvantaged. If my right hon. Friend is convinced of the merits of his new rule, it should operate so that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for example, is not disadvantaged in this Parliament by the rules being changed, and the goalposts moved, during this Parliament. The clock started ticking for her period as Chairman of the Transport Committee in the last Parliament.

Geoff Hoon: I do not anticipate that I will betray any confidences if I indicate to my hon. Friend that I have had some serious conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), in which she made her views known with, it is fair to say, considerable force. I make it clear, however, that the amendment does no more than give effect to what the House intended. There was an unintended consequence of the amendment made when this position was first established in the Standing Orders of the House which would allow, for example, someone who had by chance been elected on 21 July 1997 to continue in office for a further full term of Parliament if the relevant meeting happened to take place on 22 July 2005. That was not intended by the House. The House was clear as to its wish, which was to allow right hon. and hon. Members to serve as Select Committee Chairmen for two terms or for eight years, whichever happened to be the longer. The amendment simply gives effect to that; it does no more than that. It is not intended in any way to overturn the previous rule; it simply clarifies that rule and gives effect to what the House originally intended for its Standing Orders.

Edward Leigh: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this very desirable rule should be applied to other office holders in and outside government?

Geoff Hoon: Term limits are common practice in many parts of the United States. There is a term limit for the President of the United States, and I lived for a time in Kentucky, where governors were allowed to serve only one term. That appeared to have something to do with the history of the office and the opportunities that it afforded to its incumbent—I am sure that that is no longer the case. However, term limits are fashionable in some constitutions. Generally speaking, they have not been considered appropriate in the United Kingdom, save for the wish of the House of Commons to ensure a turnover from time to time in the occupancy of the chairmanships of Select Committees—

Andrew MacKinlay: And save for our having had seven Ministers for Europe in seven years.

Geoff Hoon: It is probably wise to move on to the next fascinating motion. Motion 7 relates to the size of some Select Committees. It proposes that the size of the Defence, Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs, Trade and Industry and Treasury Committees should increase from 11 to 14 members, reflecting the considerable interest in serving on those Committees. It proposes that the size of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee should reduce from 17 to 14 members and that the size of the Regulatory Reform Committee should reduce from 18 to 14.
	I appreciate that when the Modernisation Committee recommended a slightly larger increase in the size of the departmental Select Committees in 2002, there was some opposition from the Liaison Committee on the ground that it would inhibit Committee cohesion. The reason for proposing a modest increase today is simply that the interest of Members in serving on some of the Committees is very great. I believe that there is value in ensuring that more Back Benchers are given the opportunity to be involved in the important work of scrutiny that the departmental Select Committees undertake.
	Motion 8 makes minor changes to the Standing Orders to reflect the establishment of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Motions 9 to 31 are nominations to Select Committees in the name of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. I appreciate that these motions have taken a little time to come before the House—longer than I would have liked—but it is very much to be welcomed that most of the Select Committees will, subject to the agreement of the House today, be up and running before the summer recess.
	For the first time, as I have said, those nominations are the product, in the Labour party at least, of a transparent party process, and it is inevitable that this should have taken a little time. We hope that the Committee of Selection will be able to bring forward motions to nominate the Science and Technology, Welsh Affairs, and Finance and Services Committees as soon as possible.
	I remain committed to strengthening the Select Committee system. Since 2002, there has been a significant increase in the staff resources available to Select Committees and their activity has increased greatly. I will not pretend that this activity is always welcomed by Departments, but that is as it should be. It is widely recognised that the Select Committees now play an important part in our democratic life: they are a crucial check on the work of Government. I pay tribute to the work of Members who served on Committees in the last Parliament, and I anticipate continued vigorous activity in the Parliament ahead.
	Motion 32 makes provision for the first meeting of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Motion 33 provides for the re-establishment and nomination of the Modernisation Committee. The Committee has done valuable work since 1997, but I believe that there remains much more that it can usefully look at. Although I know that some Conservative Members are not enthusiasts for modernisation—

Eric Forth: That is putting it mildly.

Geoff Hoon: I am delighted to have this opportunity to praise the work of the Modernisation Committee to the right hon. Gentleman.

Patrick McLoughlin: Can the Leader of the House tell us what the Modernisation Committee can do that the Procedure Committee could not do?

Geoff Hoon: I think that the short answer is probably "deliver", but that may be a little frank for someone who   inhabits the Whips Office. My predecessors as Leader of the House have served on the Modernisation Committee and have seen their recommendations through the House. It is important that that momentum is maintained.

Eric Forth: If it is true, as the Leader of the House has disgracefully claimed, that the Modernisation Committee can deliver where, he says insultingly, that the Procedure Committee cannot, could that be because the Modernisation Committee is, disgracefully, chaired by a member of the Cabinet?

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has put that spin on my remarks. There was no intention on my part in any way to criticise any other Committee or the way that it operates. I was making it clear that there was a real feeling among Members on both sides of the House—not only on the Government Benches—that it was necessary to bring our practices and procedures into the 20th century, if not the 21st century. That has meant that the work of the Committee has been reflected in practice. Other Committees may work in slower time, but there was a degree of urgency felt by Modernisation Committee members of all political parties that are represented in the House, and that urgency has been reflected in the fact that it has been prepared to deliver.

George Young: On the question of delivery, did not the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor as Leader of the House and Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), fail to deliver changes in how we appoint Select Committees?

Geoff Hoon: There was a debate in the House and a vote, and in its wisdom the House chose to reject the proposals of the Modernisation Committee. I do not pretend—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who is greatly experienced in the ways of the House, will agree—that all recommendations of all Committees will always be accepted on the Floor. On that occasion, they were not.

Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Leader of House will accept that his chairing of the Modernisation Committee gives it the power to deliver; no other Select Committee has a Cabinet Minister as Chairman. Does he agree that the House works best when Committees that are concerned with the way in which the House operates and scrutinises legislation—the Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee—co-operate? Is that not the best to way to proceed? That is why I have chosen again to serve on the Modernisation Committee, having been one of its founding members way back in 1997.

Geoff Hoon: I have always been thoroughly impressed by the hon. Gentleman's work, both generally in the range of activities that he pursues in the House on behalf of his constituents, and specifically in the excellent way in which he has chaired the Procedure Committee—not a Committee on which many right hon. and hon. Members volunteer to serve. He has done so with great distinction and that has informed the work of the Modernisation Committee.
	I still believe that there are times in the House when speedy change is required. Perhaps the Modernisation Committee moves more quickly simply because it has the benefit of the Leader of House as its Chairman. That is obviously a matter for the House. However, given the proposal that is before the House, I hope to be re-elected as its Chairman in due course and to be able to continue its excellent work. Crucial to that is the knowledge and experience that Members can bring to bear on its work. If the House so decides, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman again making a valuable contribution to the Committee's work.

Chris Bryant: Notwithstanding the importance of the Leader of the House chairing the Modernisation Committee, does my right hon. Friend accept that in broad measure it is vital that Select Committees should be Back-Bench Committees? If we are to achieve the cross-party working on which most Select Committees rely, it is important that Opposition Members do not keep on switching between Front-Bench and Back-Bench responsibilities, by being Front Benchers and yet serving on Select Committees. Sometimes, that is used for partisan reasons.

Geoff Hoon: I am dealing today only with the current nominations. Those questions will logically follow later in our proceedings.

Michael Jack: The Leader of the House will be aware of exchanges in the previous Parliament involving the Liaison Committee following the Hutton inquiry's access to information of a broad-ranging nature. Subsequently, in meetings with the Liaison Committee and others, the Government indicated a more flexible and open approach to the provision of information to Select Committees. Is the right hon. Gentleman yet in a position to be able to define that greater openness and access to information, so that new Chairmen of Committees might be fully apprised of what they can expect when they call for papers in the context of inquiries?

Geoff Hoon: I had hoped that the practice had already improved. I was not aware of any serious complaints from Chairmen of Select Committees. I hope that if there are problems about access to papers, the right hon. Gentleman will write to me about them, and I shall deal with that in the usual way.

Gordon Prentice: The Government have pledged to revisit the Osmotherly rules. Which of the rules have been changed?

Geoff Hoon: The Osmotherly rules, I am informed, will be issued tomorrow. Perhaps we can have a debate on that rather complex subject if one is required. At one stage in my previous career I studied those rules with considerable care. No doubt my hon. Friend will be able to refer to that in due course.

Andrew MacKinlay: As the question of Osmotherly rules has come up, can we place in Hansard the advice that the Clerk of the House of Commons gave to Lord Hutton that the Osmotherly rules were not agreed between the Government and Parliament? We need to reaffirm that, particularly as coincidentally the rules are to be published tomorrow. There should be no misunderstanding; to these Houses of Parliament, they are not worth the paper that they are written on. They have been handed down like tablets of stone by the Executive. I will certainly not be signing up to them, and judging from the mood the House, I do not think that it will be signing up to them either.

Patrick McLoughlin: It would be nice to see the rules.

Geoff Hoon: Indeed it might be better to see them before we reach clear conclusions on their content.
	I was referring to the contribution that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst makes to any reference to modernisation. The work of Conservatives members of the Modernisation Committee has been extremely valuable in taking forward changes in the House, and I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman's observations on the Committee's work during this Parliament.

Graham Allen: I commend my right hon. Friend for congratulating the Modernisation Committee on its very good although sometimes glacially slow work. I ask him not to be unkind to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), because by his obstruction, by his keeping up colleagues late at night and by his using the rules as he did, he has caused more modernisation in this Chamber than virtually any other Member. My right hon. Friend should congratulate him on doing that.

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has made a distinctive contribution to the work of the House, as he did to the European Parliament. I first met him when he was an enthusiastic Member of the European Parliament, which he has tried to live down ever since. We all have records to defend, and at some stage we will be able to debate European matters, but I need to make progress.
	I return to the fascinating subject of the terms of reference of the Modernisation Committee, which Members will have noticed are slightly changed from those in the previous Parliament. The function of the Committee will be to consider how the House operates and to make recommendations for modernisation, rather than being limited to the consideration of the practices and procedures of the House. That is intended to ensure that the Modernisation Committee is not constrained in its field of inquiry. It would, for example, be able to consider matters touching on the administration of the House.
	Motion 34 provides for the membership of the Liaison Committee. As in the past, it will include the Chairmen of all Select Committees. In addition, as in the previous Parliament, the motion nominates the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), in anticipation of the fact that the Committee might wish to appoint a Chairman who does not also represent the interests of a particular Committee.

Pete Wishart: It is a great innovation to put the Father of the House on the Liaison Committee. Does the Leader of the House think that the Liaison Committee reflects the membership of the House? There is still no minority party membership of it. If the arithmetic were applied to reflect the proportions of representation, we should have a place on the Liaison Committee. Will he work to ensure that the Committee reflects the views of all parties in the House?

Geoff Hoon: It is important that the Liaison Committee reflects the Committees of the House. It is there for a particular purpose, which is not necessarily to reflect all the political parties represented in the House. The difficulty in practice with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that he would have to persuade the House that the minority parties could agree on who would represent them. I expect that he would experience some problems doing so but, nevertheless, the traditional purpose of the Liaison Committee is to reflect the Committees. It is not necessarily to reflect the political parties in the same way as Select Committee membership.

Eric Forth: I would like to try to help the Leader of the House by urging him to support the amendment that I tabled with other hon. Members. It says that
	"the senior backbench member of the Chairmen's Panel shall also be a member of the Liaison Committee".
	That would give the minority parties an opportunity, if they served at length and with distinction on the Chairmen's Panel, to serve on the Liaison Committee. My excellent amendment, which I shall seek to move if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, would serve a double purpose and provide the minority parties with the opportunity for which the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) asked.

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman has assisted the minority parties and me with his suggestion but, following the earlier mention of glacial progress, I doubt whether the minority parties would want to wait quite that long.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Leader of the House must accept that the stature of the Liaison Committee has changed dramatically. It used to bring together Select Committee Chairmen to discuss Select Committee business, but now, twice a year, it conducts a two-hour interrogation or question time with the Prime Minister. The Liaison Committee has changed substantially, so the Leader of the House ought to listen to the minority parties, particularly if they can suggest one person to represent their interests.

Geoff Hoon: I remain open to sensible suggestions. I was simply pointing out that the minority parties may not agree on a single candidate, so the difficulty would then arise of how to choose between the different parties that we loosely call the minority parties.

Pete Wishart: I think that in principle the right hon. Gentleman does not object to minority parties serving on the Liaison Committee. Would he be satisfied if we produced a formula or process whereby we could share a position on the Liaison Committee?

Geoff Hoon: I am a deeply cautious lawyer and I would prefer to wait and see what sensible proposal the hon. Gentleman came up with.

Chris Bryant: An amendment could be tabled.

Geoff Hoon: Perhaps the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is still thinking about it, but I look forward to considering the results carefully.
	The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook) and other hon. Members, which proposes that the senior Back-Bench member of the Chairmen's Panel should be an additional Liaison Committee member, may have something to do with the fact that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) may unfortunately lose his place on the Liaison Committee because of the two-Parliament rule. I have already expressed the esteem in which I hold him. His experience and independence of mind are widely respected in the House.

Eric Forth: But—

Geoff Hoon: There is, however, a question, as I have already suggested, about the extent to which we should continue to expand the size of the Liaison Committee. It is a practical question—if the House wishes to have a much larger Liaison Committee with, as the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) suggested, functions very different from its traditional role, it will bring that to bear in its consideration of the amendment. I accept, however, that the amendment opens the way to further membership, not least by the minority parties. I therefore have concerns about the size, functions and nature of the Liaison Committee, but it is obviously a matter for the House to decide whether to accept the proposal.

Chris Grayling: I am curious about the contradictions in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. A few minutes ago, he talked about the need to expand the membership of the Defence Committee because of Members' enthusiasm to serve on it, and he has tabled a motion to that effect. He is now expressing concern that the Liaison Committee may become too big. What is the optimal size of those Committees?

Geoff Hoon: I do not think that there is any contradiction in my remarks, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman seriously believes that there is. The Liaison Committee has had a particular function for a number of years. I accept that that function has changed, but it is for the House to decide whether, as a result, a bigger Committee should perform a slightly different function, particularly in relation to the questioning of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, however, the hon. Gentleman's argument about Members' enthusiasm to serve on the Liaison Committee probably applies to most Members, so we need a practical means to limit membership of that Committee. Traditionally, such membership has extended to Select Committee Chairmen, but it is right to add the Father of the House, because he served a particular role with great success as the Chairman of the previous Liaison Committee. Whether we wish to go further is a matter for the House.

Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House has suggested that I may have a limited vested interest in the amendment, but does he accept that the Chairmen's Panel has an important role to play in the House? It is sensible and appropriate for a Back-Bench Member representing the Panel to have an input in the Liaison Committee. The Chairmen's Panel meets under the auspices of the Chairman of Ways and Means, but it should have direct access to the Liaison Committee. Colleagues on both sides of the House support the amendment, and we believe that it is appropriate that the senior member—currently a Conservative, but it could be Labour Member—should have a place on the Liaison Committee because of the Panel's role and experience.

Geoff Hoon: As ever, the hon. Gentleman has made his case with great clarity. He makes a perfectly proper point on which the House will decide in due course.

Alan Williams: The motion makes a novel proposition that has not been considered by the House before. May I suggest a compromise that could be more advantageous than a likely defeat for the motion? Would the Leader of the House be happy for my proposition to receive urgent consideration by the Modernisation Committee, which would then report to the House as rapidly as possible?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the Father of the House for his suggestion. If the proposal is defeated today, I am certainly willing to consider his offer as part of the work of the Modernisation Committee, once it is established.
	I now come to motions 35 to 38, which relate to pay for Committee Chairmen. Motion 35 takes note of the recent report from the independent Senior Salaries Review Body on pay for Standing Committee Chairmen, and expresses the opinion of the House that pay for Standing Committee Chairmen should be introduced. I am sure that the House will join me in thanking its chairman, John Baker, and the members of the SSRB for their careful work in preparing the report. They were asked to consider how, if the House decided that it was appropriate to give additional pay to the Chairmen of Standing Committees, that could best be achieved. They found that there was a good case for making an additional payment, at least to Chairmen of Standing Committees undertaking more substantial duties. They outlined a range of options for methods of payment. They concluded that a two-tier panel, with higher payments for members undertaking a minimum time commitment, would represent the best way to match contribution and reward, but they found that a tiered structure of payment based on length of service, as proposed by the Chairman of Ways and Means, was acceptable if the House was disposed to prefer it.
	I have considered those options carefully, and I have worked closely with the Chairman of Ways and Means to structure a manageable system that is both open and transparent to the House. It is the strong advice of the Chairman that a two-tier panel would be unworkable and divisive, and that a tiered system based on experience is the option most suited to the needs of the House. He has assured me that there will be a linkage between pay and work load—the more experienced members of the Panel will be expected to do more work—and performance will be properly managed. While in the past there was no reason to eject a Panel member who was able to commit only occasional hours to the Panel, this will no longer be the case. Members who are, for whatever reason, not able to contribute as expected to the Panel will be discharged and their remuneration will cease with immediate effect.

Andrew MacKinlay: The Minister knows that I was implacably opposed and remain opposed to the paying of Chairmen of Select Committees, but I invite him to consider that his proposition is absurd and will create new anomalies. For instance, there has been a row about Ministers who get compensation money when they cease to be Ministers. Next that will apply to former Chairmen of Committees. It implies that some Members pedal faster than other Members. To suggest that there should be some compensation for sitting in the Chair, as skilled as that is, and presiding over Committees, and that Chairmen should get more than other Members, is unhealthy in a democracy. As the Minister has kindly agreed to refer some matters to the Modernisation Committee, will he do the same with this suggestion—that every Member should be expected to take a turn at presiding over a Standing Committee? That is what happens in the Congress of the United States. It would be healthy for us all to get a slice of the action and we all continue to get the basic pay, consistent with democratic norms. The proposal is extraordinarily dangerous and foolhardy in the extreme.

Geoff Hoon: I do not intend to debate with my hon. Friend the principle, which has previously been established on the basis that there should be an alternative career route for Members who choose not to become Ministers or prefer to serve the House in different ways. [Interruption.] I chose my words carefully.
	The proposition that we should not recognise the considerable skill required to chair a Committee effectively is wrong. I served on a number of Finance Bill Committees when I first came to the House. Chairing the Committee was an extremely difficult and delicate task that required a considerable understanding of the rather complex proposals contained in the Bill. We need to give some recognition to those who serve the House in that way. It is not a task that gets any kind of public approval or even respect, as it is highly unlikely that members of the public would appreciate the substantial amount of time given over to those responsibilities by a relatively limited number of Members.
	The proposal is consistent with the previous decision taken by the House in relation to recognising the contribution that Members make. In some ways, it is more important than the remuneration offered to Select Committee Chairs, because they at least get public recognition and a degree of public exposure for the work that they do. That cannot be said of members of the Chairmen's Panel.

Eric Forth: I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said in that regard. As he develops his argument on the motion, could he tell us what precedent there is for someone not going on to the full rate of pay when they are appointed to a position either in the Government or in the House? That might be helpful. Could he also explain why he believes the motion does not reflect the fifth recommendation in the SSRB report, which states:
	"We consider that . . . a two-tier Panel would represent the best way to match contribution and reward, whilst ensuring equivalence with the pay of Select Committee Chairmen in appropriate cases"?
	It seems that whereas the Government make great play of adhering to and reflecting SSRB recommendations, in this case they have gone in an entirely different direction.

Geoff Hoon: I sought to explain to the House the reason for that. I suggested to the Chairman of Ways and Means that he would have to work fairly hard to persuade me that I should depart from the recommendation of the SSRB, but I emphasised to the House the very strong conviction that he has. He has some responsibility for managing the Chairmen's Panel and he believes strongly that this is the best way of achieving the objective that he requires. I have accepted his advice and I am not in any way retreating from it. If the right hon. Gentleman reads further in the SSRB report, he will see that the board does not rule out, and indeed would accept, a more tiered arrangement.
	On the right hon. Gentleman's first proposition, it is important that in ensuring full respect for the decision of the House, if the House accepts the principle and puts it into practice, that there is a clear connection between the amount of work and time that individuals devote to their duties as part of the Chairmen's Panel, and the remuneration that they receive. For the moment there are some members of the Panel who, for perfectly proper reasons, I am sure, are not able to devote the appropriate amount of time to the work, in which case it is not inappropriate that they should be more modestly rewarded. I want to demonstrate that the arrangement is designed to ensure a consistency between the amount of time that is devoted to the task and the appropriate reward.

Gordon Prentice: An observation, then a question: it is absurd to pay people such vastly different rates on the basis of length of service, when they are doing essentially the same job. Can my Friend remind the House how Members get on to the Chairmen's Panel, what the criteria for selection are, and if Members are ever rejected?

Geoff Hoon: On length of service, if the House accepts the proposition that the responsibility requires skill and ability, that skill and ability are acquired in the course of doing the job. It is not a task that is easy to learn about, other than by chairing the relevant Committees. There is therefore a proper connection between length of service, and skill and ability. I am assured by the Chairman of Ways and Means that he will be able to take account of length of service in the decision that he takes as to which member of the Panel is appropriate to serve on which Committee. In those circumstances, I believe that is the best way forward.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I can happily make comments, as I have not been a member of the Chairmen's Panel for some time. Would my right hon. Friend emphasise that the job is exhausting and boring, and if it is properly done it requires a considerable amount of time? Chairmen do not get recognition of the extra hours that they put in. Perhaps he will make it clear to the House that if we want to continue to have an important and sensible tradition of using our own Members to chair our Committees, we ought to make sure that we treat them with respect, if nothing else.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her practical observations and her experience of dealing with these matters. She reflects exactly my admiration for those who choose to serve on the Chairmen's Panel, particularly those who put in a considerable amount of time which, as she says, is not properly recognised—it is generally not recognised at all outside the House. That is the underlying purpose of the proposal—to ensure that that recognition is given.

Ian Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the payments to the Chairs of Select Committees also allow them to have better pension emoluments at the end? Will the new awards that he proposes be part of the pension scheme, so that Chairmen would inherit them for life, as it were?

Geoff Hoon: I am not sure about my hon. Friend's last proposition, but the emoluments are pensionable and will continue to be pensionable so long as they are in payment. I am not sure that I entirely take his last point, but his basic proposition is correct.
	The motion provides for a tiered structure: those who have served for five years or more, irrespective of any breaks in service, will be eligible for an additional payment of £13,107, the same amount that applies to Select Committee pay. Those who have served for at least three years but less than five will qualify for an additional £9,960. Those who have served for at least one year but less than three will qualify for an additional £7,340, and those in their first years will qualify for £2,615. Those amounts will be uprated annually in line with Members' pay. The pay will be pensionable, and the necessary regulations will be introduced as soon as possible. The overall cost of the proposal, which is estimated to be some £400,000 a year including national insurance and pensions contributions, will depend on the experience of the Panel at any given time.
	The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has tabled an amendment that would provide an alternative grading structure. Amendment (b) provides for a two-tier structure, with half pay for those with less than two years' service. The appropriate system is a matter for the House to decide, but the amendment would obviously increase the overall cost.
	The SSRB recommended that the question of Chairmen's interests and payment for outside activities should be considered before payment is introduced. I hope that the Standards and Privileges Committee is willing to consider that issue and to produce guidance, as it did for Select Committee Chairmen, and an implementation date of 1 November has therefore been proposed with that in mind.
	Whether to introduce pay for Standing Committee Chairmen in the form proposed is a matter for the House to decide. Some hon. Members may feel that service on the Panel is honour enough or that it is wrong to reward some aspects of an hon. Member's work and not others. As I have said, however, I believe that it is right to recognise the considerable commitment made by Standing Committee Chairmen, which involves not only time in the Chair, but time for preparation and the requirement to keep available time that may not be required. Chairmanship offers little in terms of public profile—indeed, it requires hon. Members to stay quiet on Bills that they Chair. I hope that hon. Members agree that that contribution should be recognised—

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Leader of the House tell us—

Geoff Hoon: Shall I give way?

Andrew MacKinlay: Yes; I am enormously grateful. As Ministers go, I am fond of the Leader of the House.
	The Crossrail Bill will no doubt be chaired by a member of the Panel. The procedure might last for many months, when a Standing Committee would not be involved. Would the meter run during that time? The motion does not consider that matter. Approximately how many hon. Members will be left on standard MP's pay if the motions are passed tonight?

Geoff Hoon: I am always grateful for my hon. Friend's concern, and I am even more grateful for his questions. I sure that his final point will be tabled as a written question, when I shall answer it, but I cannot answer it off the top of my head
	Motion 36 is an effective motion that gives effect to the previous motion to which the Queen's recommendation has been signified, because it involves Government expenditure, including the Treasury contribution to Members' pensions. It will be moved if the House agrees the opinion motion without amendment.
	Motion 37 extends the current arrangements for Select Committee Chairmen's pay to those Select Committees that are not already eligible. In its 2003 report on Select Committee Chairmen's pay, the SSRB suggested which Committee Chairmen should be remunerated, but it said that the final decision should rest with the House. At the time, there was some unhappiness that the distinction between externally focused scrutiny Committees and other Committees did not fairly reflect the relative work loads.
	In introducing the motion on Standing Committee Chairs, I thought it only right to give the House the opportunity to decide whether the remaining Select Committees should also receive remuneration. The remaining Committees include the Administration Committee—this is contingent on the motion appointing that Committee being agreed by the House—the Finance and Services Committee, the Liaison Committee, the Procedure Committee, the Committee of Selection and the   Committee on Standards and Privileges. Those Committee Chairmen's responsibilities are varied, but they are comparable in work load to those that are already paid. In some ways, those Chairmen are even more deserving, because they do their work on behalf of us all out of the media spotlight. The cost of the proposal depends on take-up, but it would amount to around £17,000 a year per Chairman, including national insurance and pensions contributions.
	Motion 38 is again an effective motion—it gives effect to the opinion motion on Select Committee pay—to which the Queen's recommendation has been signified.
	Motion 39 amends Standing Order No. 4 so that members of the Panel would continue to serve on it until the end of the Parliament, unless they were discharged by the Speaker. At present, the Speaker has to reappoint the Panel each Session. The change is intended toremove an unnecessary complication in the arrangements for additional pay by making service continuous.
	Finally, motion 40 amends Standing Order No. 137A to empower the Welsh Affairs Committee to hold formal joint meetings with Committees of the National Assembly for Wales. That would make permanent a change agreed by the House, on an experimental basis, in the previous Parliament. The Welsh Affairs Committee and Committees of the National Assembly for Wales held eight joint meetings under that temporary power for the scrutiny of Bills and draft Bills and other purposes, and the Liaison Committee has pointed out the strong case for making the power permanent.
	Taken together, the motions amount to a useful package, which will strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive and enhance how we operate within this House. They provide a basis for hon. Members to take forward the work of scrutiny and for further modernisation in the Parliament ahead. I commend the motions to the House.

Chris Grayling: I want to establish cross-party consensus on most of those changes, although I shall make some specific comments. I want to address three key points—the formation of  Select Committees, the creation of the new Administration Committee and pay for Standing Committee Chairmen.
	Having indicated that there is a degree of consensus between Front-Bench Members on the detail of the motions, I shall begin with a clear challenge to theGovernment on the establishment of Select Committees. The matter has become a saga, which is not good enough, and the public cannot understand why it takes this House so long to establish Select Committees. I was first elected on 6 June 2001, which was one month later than the election in this Parliament, and the Select Committee's were up and running for their first meetings before the summer recess. This time, with an extra month, we are just about in a position to give those Committees the opportunity to meet for a first introductory sitting before the summer recess, but three Committees will not even be able to do that, which is not good enough.
	The Leader of the House and the Government should set out a process by which that objective will be achieved more rapidly in future. For example, this House has lost the opportunity to hold a Liaison Committee meeting in July to address with the Prime Minister important issues that have arisen over the past few months, which is simply unacceptable. I hope that the Leader of the House will take away this summer's experiences and return with proposals to speed up the process and to make it more effective, so that the public do not say, "Where are the Select Committees?"
	I understand the motivations of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), but he must consider his proposal's practicalities. Many new Select Committee members will be new hon. Members who are finding their way in the House for the first time. An election process for individual Select Committee members is impractical. I understand why he has advanced that option and his desire to speed up the process—indeed, I share his desire to introduce a speedier process. If one examines the motions, however, it is apparent that new hon. Members form the bedrock of Select Committees, and it is unrealistic to expect them to stand for election shortly after they have arrived in this place. Although I share his aspiration to introduce a new approach to Select Committees, his approach is not the right one.

Graham Allen: If the hon. Gentleman reads the amendment, which is supported by 65 hon. Members from all parties in this House, he will see that it simply requests that we should re-examine the process to see whether it can be done better. He started his speech by making that point, so if he believes it—I am sure that he does—he should support the amendment's sentiment. I have asked the Leader of the House to re-examine the matter, so that we do not experience a delay in four years' time. That can be done by returning Committees from the Government to the House and by involving all hon. Members in the process. It is not beyond the wit of hon. Members to create a system by which new hon. Members, old hon. Members and hon. Members who deserve recognition are on the Committees of their choice. If we continue to allow the system to be run by Front Benchers, we will continue to be in thrall to them.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman will know from my remarks that I share his desire to examine the way in which things work. However, I disagree with some of the detailed points that he has made in advancing his argument in the past few days, as they are not practical. We all rightly share the aspiration of ensuring that in four or five years' time, when the new Parliament meets after the next general election, we do not have a prolonged process for forming the Committees that removes from the House central parts of its scrutiny role and leaves us with the current situation as regards the Liaison Committee whereby it is not possible for the Committee to meet before the summer. That is wrong.

Graham Allen: I take the hon. Gentleman at face value, as I have worked with him in Committee and know where he stands on such issues. Will he therefore, in the position that he occupies on behalf of the Opposition, do what I am going to do and write formally to the Leader of the House requesting that he and the Modernisation Committee, and anyone else who wishes to be involved, look at this process? We need to create a broad consensus in the House so that perhaps we can do it better.

Chris Grayling: We do not need to write; we merely need to hear the Deputy Leader of the House say when he winds up that the Government accept that too much time has passed before appointing Select Committees and that the Government will consider how to ensure that that does not happen in future.

Edward Leigh: I understand that there has been no lack of recruits early on in this Parliament. In the last Parliament, the Opposition had some difficulties as a result of our relatively few numbers. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen should serve on Select Committees? On the Public Accounts Committee, we preserved a virginal purity in that matter by having no Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. In life one should do to others as one might have done to oneself. There will come a time when there is a Conservative Government, and will we want Labour spokesmen on defence serving on the Defence Committee? I think not. This is an opportunity for my hon. Friend to make it clear that this is not a practice that we want to carry on in this Parliament.

Chris Grayling: My view is that we should provide full opportunities for every Member of this House to play a full part in its proceedings in different ways, whether it is on the Opposition or the Government Front Benches, on Select Committees or on Standing Committees. I would not wish to be proscriptive today, but I share my hon. Friend's wish to ensure that Back Benchers who want to serve on Select Committees have the opportunity to do so.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman did not give a straightforward answer to his hon. Friend, who is, as he well knows, making a very clear point—that there should be a principle in this House that Select Committees should consist only of Back-Bench Members because that is important to the working of those Committees. Cannot the hon. Gentleman stand up on behalf of his party and urge that important principle?

Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman urge his own Front Benchers to ensure that Select Committees are not used as ministerial sinecures when Ministers leave office, as has certainly been the case?

Chris Bryant: indicated assent.

Chris Grayling: One of the reasons for the delay in appointing Select Committees is that there has been wrangling behind the scenes about who is and is not going to get which job. The Government have tried to ensure that they can use Select Committee chairmanships as a soft landing for Ministers who have lost office. They have also tried to ensure—I see the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in her place—that Select Committee chairmanships are not occupied by people who are more robust in their criticism of the Government.

John Bercow: I am sorry to press my hon. Friend on this point, but let me remind him that two wrongs do not make a right. I must, with great respect, ask him to give, in response to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), a verdict on an issue of principle. Does he agree that it is wrong in principle for an Opposition Front Bencher to sit on a Select Committee—yes or no? It is nothing to do with other issues; what is his response to that particular point?

Chris Grayling: My view is that in an ideal world we would not have people performing both roles. Speaking as an Opposition Front Bencher, most of us do not have the time to perform multiple roles. However, there are circumstances that break every rule, and I am not going to give my hon. Friend a cast-iron view that under no circumstances should it ever happen. A range of roles are open to Members of this House. Very often, two should not combine, but there may be occasions when circumstance dictate that they do. I will not give my hon. Friend an absolute answer on that now.

John Bercow: If my hon. Friend believes that there are extenuating circumstances in which an exception should apply and an Opposition Front Bencher should be allowed, or even required, to serve on a Select Committee, will he be good enough to specify such a circumstance?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend intends to draw me into a detailed argument that is not entirely consistent with the motions before us. I would be delighted to discuss it with him some time over a drink in the Tea Room.

Nicholas Winterton: I suggest to my hon. Friend that there is an extenuating circumstance, although it is undesirable. Her Majesty's Opposition had so few Members in the last Parliament that in order to man all the Select Committees it was necessary for members of the Whips Office from time to time to act as Opposition members of those Committees. I can say from my experience as Chairman of the Procedure Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) was an extremely assiduous and hardworking member of that Committee. It is, however, an undesirable process, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say that as long as we have sufficient Members that will not happen while he is shadow Leader of the House.

Chris Grayling: I share my hon. Friend's view that it is undesirable. However, there will also be times when it will be to the detriment of the work of a Select Committee to lose expertise as a result of somebody moving into a Front-Bench role. My hon. Friend will be aware that not every Select Committee deals with external policy issues; many deal with issues within this House. It would be wrong, for example, to deprive somebody who holds a junior Opposition role of the opportunity to sit on the Procedure Committee or the Modernisation Committee and play a role in the management and future direction of the House. Simply being a Front Bencher should not preclude one from having views on that.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I understand the difficulties that arise when there are few Opposition Members, but the House of Commons should make it clear that there is no role in the chairmanship of Select Committees for people who are Ministers and no role in the work of Select Committees for people who are spokesmen for their political parties. We get ourselves in the most frightful muddle and into very embarrassing situations when we let go of those rules without thinking about it. We have never done this in the past. It reflects no credit on any Member of this House, on whichever Front Bench they sit, if they do not maintain those lines of demarcation.

Chris Grayling: I understand the hon. Lady's point of view. She will remember, however, that when I served on her Select Committee, sitting alongside us was my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who was an assiduous and effective performer on that Committee while holding a junior role on the Opposition Front Bench in an entirely unrelated area. In my view, our Committee would have been poorer without her. I am reluctant to give cast-iron views because there are exceptions whereby Select Committees will lose out if they are deprived of expertise simply because someone has moved into a junior role in a separate area.

Gordon Prentice: rose—

Chris Bryant: rose—

Chris Grayling: I will make some progress now.
	One reason for the delay on Select Committees is that the Government have found that the two-term rule was not quite what they thought. There is no doubt that behind the scenes there have been debates about changes that the Government sought to make but were not possible under a strict interpretation of the rules. The motion on the eight-year limit is sensible, although it is disappointing that the deadline has been set at a particular date. It would be unfortunate to reach the point where a Select Committee chairmanship expires on 22 October, or whatever the date may be, potentially in mid-report while work is still pending. I would have preferred the term of office to expire at the end of the parliamentary Session beyond the date on which the eight years is reached. I suggest that we should review how that works, and if we discover that it causes operational difficulties for Committees, let us be willing to adapt the rule so that there is not a cast-iron cut-off date but a natural termination at the end of the Session of Parliament. From my experience of Committee work, had the hon. Lady been in that position midway through an important report, it would have been a loss to the Committee.

Gordon Prentice: I did not manage to intervene on the previous point, which was more important. However, machinery of Government changes are made all the time—at the beginning of a new Parliament, through departmental changes and so on. They inevitably feed through to the Select Committees. It appears to me that the eight year rule will not apply in practice to many Select Committees.

Chris Grayling: If we have the same number of departmental reorganisations as in the past few years, the hon. Gentleman will be right. It is not necessary to recast Departments every few months. After the general election, there was the bizarre situation of the Department of Trade and Industry appearing to be about to be reconstituted and then remaining as it was. Regular Committee changes have occurred because the Government have seen fit to tinker with the structure of Whitehall. If they did not do that, the circumstances would not arise.

Geoff Hoon: I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will bear it in mind that we are considering a two Parliament rule. The eight year arrangement was added as a way of dealing with very short Parliaments, as happened in 1974. It may also help the hon. Gentleman if I emphasise that, for example, when someone becomes Chairman of a Select Committee in mid-term, that would not count in relation to the two Parliament rule. The rule would begin to apply at the start of a full Parliament. The Table Office would interpret the two Parliament rule as two full parliamentary terms. As that, not the eight year rule, is the primary rule, it would have greatest effect. The rule states clearly,
	"whichever is the greater period."

Chris Grayling: I accept the Leader of the House's point. He is right that, in the case of a couple of hung Parliaments in quick succession, it would be absurd for a Select Committee Chairman to be thrown out after a few months because of the two Parliament rule. However, circumstances will arise, probably in this Parliament, in which Select Committee Chairmen leave office under the eight year rule during the Parliament. If that happens, it is more natural for the period of office to terminate at the end of a Parliament rather than on a set date in the middle of the calendar. The Leader of the House shakes his head.

Geoff Hoon: I tried to explain carefully. We are considering a two Parliament rule. Someone who is appointed to the chairmanship of a Select Committee at the beginning of this Parliament, irrespective of the date on which they are elected—that is the harm that the amendment tries to resolve—will serve for this Parliament and the next. That is clear and straightforward. The Chairmen will serve for two full Parliaments. If, by chance, one of the Parliaments lasts less than four years, the eight year rule would allow them to continue, thereby satisfying the requirement of serving for a full Parliament and observing the primary rule.

Chris Grayling: Someone who was appointed a Select Committee Chairman in the middle of the 1997–2001 Parliament could continue serving now, yet the eight year period will expire at some point in the next couple of years. Is the Leader of the House saying that people in that position could continue for the full term of this Parliament or that their term of office must terminate mid-Parliament? My understanding is that the term of office will terminate after eight years if it spreads across three Parliaments.

Geoff Hoon: Again, the primary purpose of the rule is to limit the duration of office to two Parliaments. I have made it clear that if someone becomes a Select Committee Chairman mid-Parliament, the remaining period of that Parliament would not count against the hon. Member in relation to the two Parliament rule. The amendment is essentially trying to avoid circumstances that have arisen whereby specific Select Committees have not met and appointed their Chairmen, for example, until after the summer recess. Chairmen in that position would chair the Committee for that Parliament and the succeeding Parliament. I am trying to get the rule back to the original intention: to apply to the lifetime of a Parliament. I want to remove the unnecessary focus on the eight year period.

Chris Grayling: Can my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) therefore serve as Chairman of the Procedure Committee for the entire Parliament?

Geoff Hoon: No. I shall try one last time. I suspect that the Procedure Committee did not meet until October 1997. Consequently, the election to the Chair of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) was delayed, whereas the various other Committees had been in a position to appoint their Chairmen before the summer recess. That would nevertheless count as a single Parliament, irrespective of the eight year rule, for which the hon. Gentleman was entitled to serve as Chairman. The second Parliament would be that from 2001 to 2005. The two term rule would therefore have been satisfied.

Chris Grayling: I am grateful for that clarification. It remains my view that when an eight year period comes to an end, the term of office should last until the end of the Parliament.

Edward Leigh: It is important to get that clear. The Leader of the House has made it clear—he can intervene again if I get it wrong. Someone who was appointed as a Select Committee Chair in 2001 would have served for the previous Parliament of four years. If this Parliament lasted five years, that Chairman would be allowed to remain in office until the end of the Parliament.

Chris Grayling: I am grateful for that.

Andrew MacKinlay: Some of us who are on low pay are a bit bewildered. Perhaps the Front-Bench Members can explain it to us simple souls. My understanding is that if there were a casual vacancy soon—say next year—either sadly through bereavement or promotion, the Chair's successor would serve for this Parliament and be eligible to serve for two more Parliaments, thus serving for 13 or 14 years. Am I correct?

Geoff Hoon: indicated assent.

Andrew MacKinlay: Good.

Chris Grayling: I think that that has clarified matters.
	Let me move on to the Modernisation Committee's new remit. I disagree with the Government's approach to the Modernisation Committee. That Committee should serve from time to time when there is a need for it to do so. If it meets week after week, it will look for things to do and tread on the toes of other Committees. We have already heard in the exchanges between the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield about the remits of the Modernisation Committee and Procedure Committee running into each other. The Leader of the House spoke of broadening the Modernisation Committee's remit so that it could examine other issues, especially administration. However, we are in the process of setting up the Administration Committee. Surely that Committee, not the Modernisation Committee, should deal with administration matters. A Committee that meets week in, week out will look for work that may not necessarily exist.
	I am in favour of Committees that consider changes that need to be made to the House's procedures and workings, but we do not need a Committee that simply looks for work to do every week. We have other Committees that can make the sort of small changes in procedure, standards and privileges and administration that are inevitably needed in this place. The danger of the Modernisation Committee being in the form that the Leader of the House suggests is that it will get in the way of the workings of other Committees unnecessarily.
	I have some sympathy with amendment (a) to motion 34, which the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook) tabled, especially given that the Father of the House has rightly been added to the Liaison Committee. The Liaison Committee has gained a high profile because of its work interviewing the Prime Minister twice a year. It has other co-ordinating roles. The Chairmen's Panel has a different purpose from that of Select Committees, but I believe that the House's workings would be strengthened by a bridge between them. The presence on the Liaison Committee of a senior figure from the Chairmen's Panel would be beneficial. Hon. Members should consider the amendment carefully and sympathetically.

Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House suggested that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) was on the Liaison Committee because he was the Father of the House, but I am not sure that that is the case. He is on it because of his merits and because of the role that he can play. May I remind the Leader of the House that the predecessor of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West was neither the Father of the House nor the Chairman of any Committee? He was appointed by the House because of his experience. While I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is on the Liaison Committee—I hope that he will soon become its Chairman again—he is not there because he is the Father of the House; he is there because the House wished him to serve on the Committee because of his experience and knowledge of the House. I very much support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) that a member of the Chairmen's Panel should serve on the Liaison Committee because of the experience and knowledge that they can bring to the work of that Committee.

Chris Grayling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. His contribution speaks for itself. There would be significant benefits to that proposal and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will address that point later and give careful consideration to the amendment.
	There are mixed views in the House about the establishment of a new Administration Committee, but I believe that it is a logical and sensible step. There are a number of areas in which the work of the previous five Committees clearly integrate, including catering, accommodation, the provision of catering services in meeting rooms, broadcasting and information. If we are seeking to communicate what goes on in this place more effectively, and to learn some of the lessons highlighted by bodies such as the Puttnam commission on the ways in which we can improve people's knowledge and understanding of the workings of the House, it is important to remove the artificial divisions between broadcasting and information, and between some of the other functions of the previous five Committees. Those functions should logically come together. We need to take an integrated approach to running the House and the new Committee will play a valuable role in achieving that.
	The proposal that the Chairmen of Standing Committees should be paid has come from the Senior Salaries Review Body. The structure of the proposal on the table today has been discussed by the SSRB, although it is not its original proposal, as the Leader of the House pointed out. It is, however, a proposal that the body has studied and to which it makes reference in its report. Having had conversations with the Leader of the House and with the Chairman of Ways and Means, I understand the reservations about the SSRB recommendation. I was initially taken with the concept of an A list of senior Chairmen and a B list of those in more junior positions. I understand the questions about the viability of such a proposal, but it remains my view that a fragmented, time-based system such as that set out in the motion would not be the right way forward.
	Let us take the example of a distinguished, experienced Select Committee Chairman who stands down from that chairmanship at the end of the period specified in the rule that the Leader of the House has described. The former Chairman might return to the Back Benches without a role in the House, and then be invited by the Speaker to join the Chairmen's Panel. That would be precisely the kind of person whom we would want to provide a senior, experienced and respected lead in Committees, the kind of Member who people could look up to and accept in a Chairman's role. Is it really right that such a person should join the Chairmen's Panel on a year's probation, as a junior member? Should not they be brought in with the same status and stature, both in terms of the view of the House and of remuneration, that they would have enjoyed if they had carried on as a Select Committee Chairman?
	It is illogical to try to attract to the Chairmen's Panel some of our senior people, perhaps a decent interval after they have left Government and returned to the Back Benches, or after they have given up a Select Committee chairmanship, if we are going to bring them in at the bottom of what is intentionally designed to be a career ladder. That is my big concern about the Government's proposals.
	We also wonder whether it is right to introduce a system of increments for the first time. Such systems are common elsewhere, but we would, for the first time, be introducing the principle of more pay for longer service.

Eric Forth: There is another way of looking at that, which would involve calling it a probationary period. I asked the Leader of the House whether he could give me any examples of this being done before, but he was unable to do so. Ministers get full pay as soon as they are appointed, as do Select Committee Chairmen and even Deputy Speakers of the House. Does it not therefore seem anomalous to my hon. Friend that the Chairmen's Panel should be picked out uniquely for this rather odd gradation of probationary treatment?

Chris Grayling: Serving on the Chairmen's Panel is hard work, and sitting in the Chair of a long Standing Committee is a challenging task. Those who do the job have an extremely important role to play. They should be—and, indeed, are—some of the most respected senior colleagues in the House. We should treat them as such.

Gordon Prentice: May I invite the hon. Gentleman to answer a question that I put to the Leader of the House earlier, to which the Leader of the House did not respond? How do Members get on to the Chairmen's Panel? What are the criteria for selection? Are Members ever turned down or rejected?

Chris Grayling: I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot answer the Leader of the House's questions for him. I suggest that he puts his question to the Deputy Leader of the House at the end of the debate.

Andrew MacKinlay: I wish the hon. Gentleman a long time in the House. Will he give a personal undertaking that if and when there is a proposal that Members on the Opposition Front Bench should be paid an additional stipend, he will oppose it?

Chris Grayling: I am not aware of any such proposal—

Andrew MacKinlay: Yet.

Chris Grayling: So I am not going to be drawn into speculating—

Andrew MacKinlay: Yet.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) is an experienced Member of the House. He knows that he must not conduct a debate from a sedentary position.

Chris Grayling: I think that we should cross that bridge when the Government make such a proposal. I shall not be diverted away from the motion before the House today.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) makes an important point. The Leader of the House does not get a pay rise when he has been in his job for a year, and neither do the Speaker, the Deputy Speakers, Select Committee Chairmen or MPs. So this proposal represents a new dimension in regard to pay in the House, and I am not entirely comfortable with it.
	A paid environment requires a formal commitment of time by members of the Chairmen's Panel. The SSRB is quite clear about that. Indeed, certain elements that are missing from the Government's proposals include two specific recommendations by the SSRB, which have perhaps been addressed implicitly, although not explicitly. Its recommendation No. 6 states:
	"However in this case it will in our view be important for the House to be clear, before payment is introduced, what administrative or other measures . . . are to be put in place to ensure that the different levels of reward are correlated as far as possible with the different contributions of Panel members."
	Recommendation No. 8 states that
	"before payment of Standing Committee Chairmen is introduced, the House should give consideration to the question of Chairmen's outside interests, and payment for activities outside the House."
	The Leader of the House has not addressed those recommendations today and I would be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House could clarify in detail what is happening in that regard.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: When I entered the House, there was a long and honourable tradition among some well-known Chairmen of sleeping happily through the most complex of Standing Committees, particularly on the Finance Bill. So far as I know, they were never removed from the Chairmen's Panel. Once we get involved with these proposed gradations, we shall get into the most terrible mess. That is why I opposed the proposals for paying Select Committee Chairmen. Would it not be sensible just to say, "Pay the gentlemen"?

Chris Grayling: I well understand the fatigue of those Chairmen that the hon. Lady describes. Having sat through Standing Committees myself, I have enormous admiration for the Chairmen who manage to stay alert and involved in certain debates, important though they are. The hon. Lady is right; we should simply pay them. My anxiety about the motion is that it over-complicates what should be a straightforward situation.
	In relation to motions 37 and 38, I absolutely agree with the Leader of the House. The Committees concerned are important and should not be separated from the work done by others in terms of the way that they are seen by the House, the way that they are treated or the way that their Chairmen are remunerated. He has our support on those motions.
	Today's set of proposals will undoubtedly prompt comment from the Back Benches. Broadly speaking, they are package with which I and my colleagues are comfortable. Above all, however, such motions are not for the Front Bench but for the House. I wait with interest to hear the contributions of Members on both sides of the House to the debate. The House will make up its mind in due course.

David Heath: Before I start my comments on the motions, may I welcome the Leader of the House's announcement about the book of condolences, which will be much appreciated by Members in all parts of the House? I am grateful to him.
	We are dealing with a rather belated process of appointing Select Committees, which has been eagerly anticipated by Members in all parts of the House and by many people outside. I detect a huge degree of enthusiasm from Members who are about to be appointed to Select Committees, some of them for the first time. I read in The Times about one of our new colleagues—I do not think that he is in the Chamber at the moment, and I will certainly not identify him—who was so enthusiastic that he sent out a press release saying that he was delighted to have been appointed to the "powerful" and "much sought-after" Education and Skills Committee. He has pre-empted the view of the House a little, but many Members will share his enthusiasm about participating in the work   of "powerful" and "much sought-after" Select Committees.

Ian Gibson: In relation to the time delay in getting these Committees going, does the hon. Gentleman agree that patronage and blackmail take some time to enact?

David Heath: I have the greatest esteem for the hon. Gentleman, who was my Chairman when I served on the Science and Technology Committee, and who I presume is alluding to what the Leader of the House referred to as the principles of the Labour party. I am certainly not in a position to comment on the principles of the Labour party, other than to say that they appear to take a particularly long time, especially in the case of the Science and Technology Committee, of which he was a distinguished Chairman who took the Committee to a new level of respect for its work.
	As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) suggested, we need to consider again the process of selection. There are innate difficulties in relation to a simple election process, and he would be the first to recognise that. Clearly, if we are to ensure that all parts of the House are represented properly on Select Committees, and that there is not a majoritarian view as to who is the appropriate person to sit on a Committee, safeguards must be built into the process. I accept, however, that a simple process by which it appears that it is those on the Front Bench, or worse, solely the Whips, who determine who sits on Committees, for their own advantage in terms of patronage or discipline, is not the way for the House to choose who sits on Select Committees. I hope that we can arrive at a better system.

Eric Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, first, Select Committees should have equal numbers of Government and non-Government Members, and secondly, that after a proper allocation of chairmanships by party according to the numbers in the House, each Committee could then elects its own Chairman, given the party distribution and given an equal representation of non-Government Members on Committees? Would that not be a step forward?

David Heath: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. Certainly, I was one of those who urged, when we were considering the difficulties with regard to the Standards and Privileges Committee, that for self-evident reasons it was not in the interests of that Committee to have a Government majority. Equally, I feel that there needs to be a regard for the composition of the House. Given the strong position of Chairmen of Select Committees in carrying forward the business of the Committee and given the status that they hold, the composition of the House must be a factor in that regard, too. The difficulty, which we need to address, is how to balance those two objectives, which are equally valid but not easy to reconcile. That is why I support the view that we need to consider this matter again.
	It would also be greatly to the House's advantage, and would avoid what has happened this year, were we to have a clear timetable, set out before a general election, for the completion of the process. It has taken far too long this time, and the fact that the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Science and Technology Committee will not be in a position to meet before the recess means that the lack of scrutiny will extend from March until October. It does not take a mathematical genius to work out that that is too long for the Government's work, which continues during that period, not to be scrutinised, whether or not there are departmental Select Committees.

John Bercow: Even were one to have regard to party balance in the allocation of Select Committee chairmanships, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is absolutely no requirement whatever for there to be effectively a mandated requirement for members of the Committee, on pain of defiance of the Whips Office, to vote for a particular candidate as Chairman?

David Heath: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that observation, and I agree with him entirely. At present, the difficulty is that a decision is taken as to who should be Chairman of a Committee without taking into account the views of that Committee. As I said, I think that there is a need for party allocation, and speaking as a former council leader for too many years, I am afraid that I recognise the practicalities of organising these matters to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Ultimately, however, it seems entirely appropriate that members of a Committee, being aware of the political party to which a chairmanship has been allocated, should nevertheless have a free vote on whom they choose in that capacity. That might circumvent some of the unpleasant manifestations of power struggles within the Government party, which seem to have delayed proceedings on this occasion.

Graham Allen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that however a Select Committee is composed—I have some sympathy with the proposal of loosening the composition—the most important thing is how it conducts its business? A Select Committee that had a particular majority or a particular view, and that was unable to talk to the Government, would be marginalised and rendered useless by the Government's response to it. Is not the principle that we need to get over to the Government that they should not be afraid of Select Committees or Parliament and that we can make a contribution to better governance in this country, rather than trying to control, contain and select the membership of Committees that should be exclusively the gift of the House?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course a Committee should have complete freedom in terms of its conduct and the way that it organises its business. It is also necessary for the Government to be prepared on all occasions to respond appropriately to the Select Committee. Having sat on the Science and Technology Committee in the previous Parliament when we wished to consider the scientific aspects of terrorism, to be told by the Home Secretary that he would neither provide evidence to the Committee on that matter nor allow any official within his purview to give evidence to it, because in his opinion that was a matter for the Home Affairs Committee, not the Science and Technology Committee, is outrageous. It was an abuse of power by the then Home Secretary. On that occasion, Parliament, through the Select Committee, should have been in a position to express a more robust view in response to the Department.

Graham Allen: rose—

David Heath: I give way, for the last time, to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North.

Graham Allen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He is leading toward the logical conclusion that unless Parliament's own Standing Orders provide for how soon after a general election Select Committees should be created; unless we take control of issues such as the response that the Government are expected to give to departmental Select Committees; unless we, rather than the Government and Opposition Front Benchers, control this process—the hon. Gentleman's own Front Benchers have not exactly covered themselves with glory in this regard in the past few weeks—the Government will always be able to refuse to reply to a report, or to refuse to create Committees that scrutinise the Government themselves. The anachronism is that the Government are the driving force behind setting up Committees that scrutinise the Government themselves, rather than it being clearly established in our Standing Orders that Parliament is the driving force—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I point out to the House that this subject has been aired very considerably and, in the case of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), repetitively. It is not an item on the Order Paper for decision today, and we have heard enough about it.

Graham Allen: With great respect—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some 65 Members of this House, plus many others, put their name to an amendment that would have enabled us to debate this matter properly, but unfortunately it was not selected for debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Precisely. I call Mr. David Heath.

David Heath: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to prolong the dialogue with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, other than to say that I do not entirely understand his reference a moment ago to my Front Benchers, about which he might like to speak to me afterwards. So far as I am concerned, on this issue I am the Front Bencher, and I certainly have not entered into any discussions of the sort that he suggested.
	The proposition regarding the Administration Committee seems entirely sensible. I hold no brief for the old Catering Committee's independence of spirit, so this is a sensible step forward. My only question concerns the Administration Committee's ability to establish sub-committees. I hope that, having established a single Administration Committee, we are not then going to re-create the old House Committees as sub-committees, in their own right, of that Administration Committee. Doing so would involve simply spawning an extra Committee, with no benefit to the business of the House, so I hope that that is not the intention.
	On motion 6 and term limits, through a process of interrogation the House has come to understand precisely what the Leader of the House's proposition means. It seems a little perverse, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) said, for an early resignation from the Chair of a Committee to result in someone's being able to serve anything up to just short of 15 years in the Chair, given that others are limited to eight years. That does not seem entirely logical, but of course, there will always be exceptions to any rule. I should also point out that we are already getting desperately near to mid-term, and one wonders whether those who are finally elected as Committee Chairmen after the long recess will be deemed to be serving for a full Parliament, or for a part-Parliament that can be disregarded for accountancy purposes.
	There is another illogicality in respect of motion 6. As the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) has pointed out, changes in the machinery of government apparently create a new entity for the purpose of the relevant Standing Order. As the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said, we very nearly had a new "Department of Productivity, Energy and Industry". Who knows whether the same Select Committee that serves the Department of Trade and Industry would have served that Department? It was to have a different name, so presumably there was some difference in emphasis. It would have been absurd to have turned back the milometer, simply because of a minor change in nomenclature. Given most Members' parliamentary careers, it would surely make more sense to say that eight years, or two Parliaments, spent chairing Select Committees was the determining factor, rather than the time spent chairing a particular Select Committee. It is relatively rare for someone who has chaired a particular Select Committee for two Parliaments to seek election as Chair of another Select Committee.
	On motion 7 and the size of Select Committees, I have no quarrel with the broad principle of the proposal. However, the change in the size of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the removal of its capacity to have two sub-committees means that we are finally airbrushing agriculture out of parliamentary history. Agriculture has already disappeared, practically, from Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions. It has been overtaken by questions—very important ones, I am sure—about the environment, and it is almost impossible for those of us who serve rural constituencies, in which agriculture remains a significant industry, to raise relevant issues. As a result of this change, there will be no parliamentary entity devoted to agricultural policy. This is a very long way from just a few years ago, when we seemed to talk about nothing else. As a Member representing Somerset, I consider that a retrograde step. How we produce our food, who produces it and what happens in rural Britain are still important issues, and because of this change, we will lose the opportunity to debate them.
	In setting up this array of Select Committees today—assuming that the House agrees to the motions before it—I remind the Leader of the House of two issues that are not dealt with on the Order Paper, the first of which is the setting up, hopefully, of a Joint Committee on House of Lords reform. It is eagerly anticipated in some quarters that we make progress on what is a half-finished job. Such a Committee is the starting point, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter his close attention.
	Secondly, I want to renew the suggestion that I made to the Leader of the House at last week's business questions. Following the successful bid for the 2012 Olympics—I have spoken to other Members about this issue since, and I know that a number of them agree with my view—there is substantial merit in setting up a special Select Committee to deal with the Olympic preparations. The Australian Parliament did so in preparation for the Sydney Olympics—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) says from a sedentary position that it involves lots of travel. I should make it absolutely clear that I hope that such a Committee will not be created for the purpose of arranging visits to cities that have staged the Olympics, nor in anticipation of the provision of tickets for Olympic events. Rather, it should scrutinise the very large expenditure of public money, cross-departmental in nature, and examine how the benefits associated with the successful Olympic bid will spread beyond London to other parts of the country which we are constantly reassured will benefit, even though we have yet to be entirely convinced. Such a Committee should also provide continuity across the two or three Parliaments during which there may, or may not, be changes of Administration. There will certainly be changes in ministerial responsibility, so we should seek continuity in respect of the House.

Christopher Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how such a Committee would interact with the all-party Olympics group, which already exists in the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is perfectly in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to a Committee that might have been set up in relation to a motion that deals with setting up particular Select Committees, but we do not want to go down that particular avenue.

David Heath: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I shall move on to motion 34, which deals with the Liaison Committee. That Committee has, to some extent, grown like topsy in both size and responsibilities. It has moved a long way from what it did previously—largely sorting out matters at issue between departmental Select Committees and making common representations on behalf of Select Committees. It now has a regular opportunity to scrutinise the work of the Prime Minister and to ask questions. For that reason, it has become an extremely popular Committee.
	It worries me slightly that that has happened, as the Liaison Committee is not necessarily the best vehicle for scrutinising the work of what is effectively, as we move towards a more presidential system, the Prime Minister's Department. I leave it to the House to determine whether that development should be welcomed. Nevertheless, we need a more formal and better way of scrutinising the Prime Minister and holding him to account beyond the opportunities that arise from Prime Minister's questions. As I said, I am not convinced that the Liaison Committee is the best body for doing so, but it is the best that we have at present.
	I shall listen carefully to the arguments for adding Members of the Chairman's Panel to the Liaison Committee, but I have to say that I will need some persuasion that that is appropriate. It is not that I oppose further expansion of the Liaison Committee or that I want to deprive the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), if he were the person suggested, of taking on that role for the Committee. The difficulty lies with whether the Chairman's Panel—we should remember that it comprises the Chairmen of Standing Committees of the House—should take on a political role in the sense of questioning the Prime Minister and taking up political matters with the Executive.
	We must expect impartiality from Members in their role as Chairmen. Of course they have a separate political role as Members of Parliament when they sit in the Chamber and act in their capacity as Back Benchers, but that is different from how they should act as Chairmen selected by the Chairman of Ways of Means to perform a particular function. In that context, they require a degree of impartiality that should be exercised habitually, but might be prejudiced by membership of the Liaison Committee. We need only think of Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker being asked to sit on that Committee and put questions to the Prime Minister to realise that the development should not necessarily be welcomed. Given that Chairmen are, in effect, vicariously representing Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker in their roles, I am not sure that it is appropriate for a person in that capacity to be put in that position—and I am not even sure that the scrutiny role should be given to the Liaison Committee in any case. There are better ways of providing proper scrutiny.
	Finally, I want to deal with the payment of Standing Committee Chairmen. I have been agnostic, at best, on the question of the payment of Chairmen of either Select or Standing Committees. I personally remain to be convinced, though many of my colleagues feel otherwise. I understand the need for a process of career development within the House for those who are neither invited to, nor likely to, take on a governmental role. That applies to members of the Opposition parties as much as to the Government party. If the House takes the view that Select Committee Chairmen should be paid, I understand the argument that there should be payment for the Chairmen of Standing Committees.
	I would like to say how much I value the role of hon. Members who are prepared to take on the chairmanship of Standing Committees of the House. In my role as shadow spokesman on Home Office and Department for Constitutional Affairs matters, I have sat on an inordinate number of delegated legislation Committees over the last few years. I have also represented my party from the Front Bench on many substantial Bills, which have required many hours of Standing Committee time, and I have nothing but admiration for those who sit in the Chair—without the capacity to express their own opinions—keep order and uphold the machinery of parliamentary work.
	I looked carefully at the Senior Salaries Review Board report, but I do not believe that it has got it right. There is a question mark about the two-tier system, which I am not convinced is workable. Having a one-tier system, despite the superficial attraction, does not take into account the difficulties of choosing new Members to sit on the Chairman's Panel and giving them an opportunity to dip their toes in the water to see whether they are suited to that role in respect of their personal aspirations or their performance.
	There is merit in the proposal, which I understand originated from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as Chairman of Ways and Means, for a gradated system. I can see the advantage of allowing people in the initial stages to leave the Chairman's Panel in order to take on a Front-Bench role within the party. We can fairly establish that once a Member has been on the Chairman's Panel for a few years, it is unlikely that they would be invited to take on such a role, but there is merit in allowing a certain amount of flow in the initial changes. With the best will in the world, paying a substantial amount of extra money from day one may make it much more difficult to allow that flexibility.
	I am attracted to the proposal put forward by the Leader of the House. It is a matter for a free vote and I have no idea how colleagues feel on what is essentially a House matter. I shall listen to the arguments, but I am not attracted to a two-tier system because I do not like the idea of having one category of "super Chairmen" and another category of less able Chairmen. That is not the right way to do our business.
	The hon. Member for Thurrock alluded to an important matter: we shall quickly reach the stage at which the only people who do not have some sort of supplement to their pay are troublesome Back Benchers on the Government side and Opposition Front Benchers, who will have to undertake their arduous duties with no consideration of extra emoluments. I say that without any expectation of sympathy, but it seems slightly anomalous that the people who most regularly intervene and question the Executive from both sides of the House are the least well paid for the privilege of doing so. Perhaps we should take pride in that position and accept that our reward lies in heaven.

Alan Williams: I had not intended to make a speech today, just to make the odd intervention, but I want to follow on from what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has just said about the evolution of the Liaison Committee.
	When I first joined it, the Liaison Committee was essentially a management committee for the Select Committees, dealing with budgetary and other in-house matters. We managed to evolve a new system for dealing with the administrative side, and that gave the Committee Chairman time to deal with issues relating to Parliament more generally. The Liaison Committee's evolution over the past four years has affected its collective thinking about the workings of the House, as well as allowing it to deal directly with the Prime Minister.
	As far as the Prime Minister's visits are concerned, I do not pretend that they are the perfect way to conduct interviews with him. However, what we have is vastly better than anything that we ever had before, because no other Prime Minister has ever submitted himself to regular scrutiny by a Select Committee. We have had to adapt to ensure that we get best value from the meetings.
	Fortuitously, the involvement of so many Committee Chairmen in the Liaison Committee means that, collectively, we are able to bring informed opinion to bear on all aspects of Government policy. For the time being, the Committee is the best vehicle that we have for that, but I have no objection to trying to find more effective ways to carry out our work. Even so, I expect that we will carry on as we are in the near term.
	We are trying to arrange a meeting of the Liaison Committee for Thursday morning, so that it can be established formally. We hope to get a meeting with the Prime Minister as early as possible in the autumn, and informal contacts to that end are already in hand. After the autumn, we will revert to the normal timetable of holding meetings in January-February and June-July. That will mean that we will not have lost a hearing with the Prime Minister, and that we will have held our full quota of meetings over the life of this Parliament.
	I want to touch on a couple of points in passing. First, I agree with those colleagues who think that a single-tier system of payment is to be preferred. Any other system would be too complicated and would lead to inequity.
	Another question has to do with the size of Select Committees. The Liaison Committee was unanimous in its opinion the last time that question arose. Indeed, the then Leader of the House has admitted that he was astonished by the strength of feeling that he encountered when the Liaison Committee insisted that a membership of 11 seemed to be the optimum. The Committee made it clear that it believed that a larger membership caused repetitiveness and lacked cohesion. If the House agrees to the proposition before it today, the Liaison Committee will probably conduct a review of its members as to whether larger Committees work, and report to the House accordingly.
	Finally, the Osmotherly rules have been referred to. We live in a time of political disenchantment and disconnection, when people have rumbled that they are not very involved in the democratic process. People who live to be 80 have perhaps 18 opportunities to vote in general elections, but that is their total democratic input. As I have said before—and I apologise for repeating it—democracy exists meaningfully only if the Government are held to account every day in the House of Commons.
	We are talking today about establishing Select Committees, but that means setting up the process and machinery of interrogation. We must remember that that is the prime objective of the Select Committees. It is a matter not of sharing the spoils between us, but of getting our Committees to work as effectively as possible.
	I am worried that the role of scrutiny will slip from Parliament unless the Select Committees are able to assert themselves positively. In the previous Parliament, a gulf emerged between the Hutton and Butler inquiries and the Select Committees. The quality and quantity of information and witnesses available to Hutton and Butler were much greater than any to which the Select Committees had ever had access.
	A challenge now faces the House, and the Government. What part do the Government want to play, and where do they want to go with Select Committees? Unless there is greater co-operation with the Committees in the provision of information, the demands for inquiries to be conducted outside the House will grow louder, and that will happen because such inquiries cannot be conducted efficiently inside it. That is why the Liaison Committee told the previous Leader of the House that we needed greater access to witnesses and better provision of information.
	An undertaking was given that, in future, there would be a presumption that information and witnesses would be provided when the Committees asked for them. It is now up to the Government to fulfil that undertaking. If they do not do so, they will suffer too: the Select Committees will lose credibility as the centre for Government accountability, and the Government will find that ad hoc, non-representative committees are increasingly doing Parliament's job.
	Although hon. Members have been laughing and joking in the debate, the truth is that we have a very short time in which to ensure that our system of accountability works effectively. If we do not achieve that, the role of holding the Government to account will slip away from Parliament.

Nicholas Winterton: I am extremely honoured to follow the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and I hope that the House will heed his very wise words. If our parliamentary democracy is to remain respected and trusted by the electorate, the House as a whole must be able to scrutinise a Government's performance, legislation and management of the country as fully and effectively as possible.
	In my experience, the Select Committee system is the only way to achieve that. Therefore, the usual channels—that is, the Government and Opposition Front Benches—should not have a major patronage function when it comes to appointing members of Select Committees. I think that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is trying to achieve that, although I am not sure that I go along with the procedure that he proposes. In the previous Parliament, the Modernisation Committee put forward proposals that could have achieved what many Back-Bench Members want but, sadly, those proposals were rejected by the House by a narrow majority.
	Shortly, the Leader of the House will be elected Chairman of the Modernisation Committee. I hope that he and the shadow Leader of the House will review the appointments of hon. Members to Select Committees so that those Committees can fulfil their functions on behalf of the House.
	My contribution to the debate will be brief, but I wish to reiterate a point that several hon. Members have already made, which is that the Government of the day have a duty to appoint Committees as quickly as possible after a general election, so that the House can properly monitor and scrutinise legislation and the performance of the Government.
	I remain somewhat confused by the explanation that the Leader of the House provided to other hon. Members on the question of term limits for Chairmen of Select Committees. It appears that there is an eight-year rule, but that that period could be extended to 12 or 13 years. I am sure that that cannot be right or fair in any situation. The period should be two Parliaments or eight years. If someone is appointed in the middle of a Parliament, the three years of that Parliament should not be entirely ignored so that they can go on to serve as Chairman of a Select Committee for a further two Parliaments.

Gordon Prentice: The important point is that if the remit of a Select Committee is changed in any way, it becomes for all intents and purposes a new Select Committee.

Nicholas Winterton: I am not sure that that is a helpful intervention in terms of the confusion that I am expressing. The Leader of the House gave contradictory answers to the questions that were put to him. I hope that the shadow Leader of the House will clarify the matter in his inimitable way, because it is very important. I am likely to be affected by motion 6 in due course, which I suspect will be passed later tonight, and I have some concern about the rule and the inflexible systems that it would impose. Perhaps because of the time that I have spent in the House, I believe that experience is important, especially in matters relating to how the House operates and its procedures, including modernisation proposals. Great experience of the House is very helpful in such debates and in deciding what proposals should be put to the House.
	Whether it is appropriate or not, I wish to pay tribute to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the role that you have played in the issue of pay for Standing Committee Chairmen. The role of Standing Committee Chairmen is critical. Those Members who undertake it often work long hours, as the Leader of the House said, unappreciated and without publicity, depriving themselves of other activities in the House, including perhaps speaking in the Chamber and receiving media exposure as a result.
	The House cannot do without the Standing Committee Chairmen. I do not subscribe to the view that many of the Committees that I have had the privilege of chairing have been dull, because I happen to be hands-on and I enjoy the job. I have done it for nearly 20 years and I am happy to continue to do it as long as Mr. Speaker and his Deputies ask me to continue to serve on the Chairmen's Panel. It is rewarding work. I am delighted that the Senior Salaries Review Body has been involved and that the Leader of the House and others have brought pressure to bear so that the House will decide whether Standing Committee Chairmen should be paid, at the highest rate, at a rate equal to Select Committee Chairmen.
	I shall not enter the debate about graduated or non-graduated pay structure. I say only that those who have put forward proposals have done so in the knowledge of what is involved. I respect the Chairman of Ways and Means for the views that he has expressed, because he has an intimate knowledge of the experience that is needed and the time that is taken up to do the job that the House expects of the Chairmen of Standing Committees.
	I pay tribute to the work of the Liaison Committee, because of the amendment that indirectly involves me. I would point out to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that it is possible for Members on either side of the House to bring a non-party political influence to bear on debate and discussion, especially when it relates to the way in which the House of Commons operates, deals with legislation and its procedures to ensure proper scrutiny. Towards the end of the last Parliament, for example, the Procedure Committee, which I chaired, produced a well-balanced report on programming, which recommended changes to programming to make it more acceptable to all parties in the House. That shows that Members who could sit on the Liaison Committee could bring a non-party political experience and knowledge to bear on some of the important matters that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West mentioned in what I consider to be a keynote address in this debate.

David Heath: I do not doubt any of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. Indeed, it is essential, especially in matters of procedure, that Members take a quasi-judicial view of matters. What I cannot understand is how that fits with the work of the Liaison Committee. The point that I wanted to make was that the Liaison Committee has two roles—an organisation role, in which the Chairmen's Panel is not involved, and an interrogatory role with regard to the Prime Minister, in which the Chairmen's Panel should not be involved.

Nicholas Winterton: I accept that, and a member of the Liaison Committee has no need to take part in the questioning of the Prime Minister if he or she thinks that it is inappropriate to do so. However, I also remind the hon. Gentleman that in the last Parliament, the Liaison Committee produced two excellent reports—as I am sure the right hon. Member for Swansea, West remembers, because he chaired the Committee—on how Parliament could better scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account. The reports also addressed the role of Select Committees. That had nothing to do with party politics, and it is important that the Liaison Committee—one of the most powerful Committees, if not the most powerful, in the House of Commons, because it is composed of the Chairmen of all the other Committees—should have a non-party political input into matters relating to the way in which the House undertakes its work. The reports published by the Liaison Committee were very important, but they were not heeded sufficiently by the Government. I hope that in the future such reports will receive better attention and a more sympathetic hearing from the Government of the day.
	I hope that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and other distinguished Members on both sides of the House will receive a little more sympathy from the Deputy Leader of the House than, sadly, it received from the Leader of the House. It offers a constructive way of bringing an element of continuity in the Liaison Committee from one Parliament to another. As the hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, work out, there will be many new members of the Liaison Committee, so an element of continuity will do no harm. I do not make that point out of any particular preference for myself, but in future the senior Member on the Chairman's Panel could add usefully to the work, knowledge and experience of the Liaison Committee.
	In the main, I warmly support the motions that the Government have tabled today. It is important that the Select Committees be set up, and I was extremely encouraged that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West indicated that the Liaison Committee would meet before we break for the summer recess. That is a fantastic gesture and I hope that it will be taken up and that it will prove possible to hold that meeting.

Andrew MacKinlay: Before I aggravate anybody, I commend motion 15 to the House. I have a selfish interest as I want to be a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I extend thanks in good measure to the Government Chief Whip and, I suspect, to the elected Members of the parliamentary Labour party who worked hard to draw up the list of Labour nominees. Sometimes, I think that the holy spirit may have intervened, as I understand that it was a close-run thing as far as I was concerned, so I am grateful to be on the list. However, the process gives rise to questions about the way that Select Committees are set up, as other Members have pointed out.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is not in the Chamber, unfortunately. I disagree with his proposal, although I share his objective in taking decisions on all these issues away from Front-Bench Members. We should be looking ahead four years, and the negotiations on the apportionment of Chairmen between the political parties and the size of Committees should be determined by the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, the chairman of the 1922 executive and/or an appropriate officer and appropriate representatives of the other political parties. There are two reasons for that. First, it would remove, or reduce, the feeling that there is patronage, especially when the payment of Chairmen is involved. Secondly, it would help in the expedition of business. With the best will in the world, after a general election Government and Opposition Whips are preoccupied with other things. After a general election, all Members could indicate to their parties which Committees they are interested in from day one, and the necessary processing would be expedited if it was dealt with by the party secretariat and Back-Bench representatives of the political parties rather than the Whips, which only delays things and creates jealousy and suspicion about patronage.
	I confess to emotional swings as I listened to the debate, especially the speeches of the two Front-Bench speakers. At one point, I thought that I had my whole career before me, but then I swung the other way and thought that my wilderness years were going on for rather a long time. There would be so many people who would have the opportunity of receiving enhanced payments and so many distinguished people who would have to find a role. I am confused. We are elected to this place as Members of Parliament and it is part of our job to decide how we discharge that duty. I can understand that the principal Officers of the House and senior members of the Government should receive substantial payment, but the whole drift towards extra payments is unhealthy for democracy. There is vast disparity in the pay of Ministers and we are aggravating that situation by paying Chairmen of Select Committees—and we now propose to extend that further. That is unhealthy. We should be working towards a situation where every Member of Parliament is deemed equal. He or she should defend stewardship of their office before the electorate when they seek re-election. There should be no additional payments such as those we instigated in the last Parliament and are likely to extend this evening. That will make things extraordinarily difficult.
	Nobody has noticed that one aspect of government on which we are not setting up a Select Committee is security and intelligence, for which there is no parliamentary oversight. We must be unique among democracies in not having a parliamentary Committee providing such oversight. There is a Committee made up of parliamentarians, appointed by the Prime Minister, who is in charge of the security and intelligence services, but it is not a parliamentary Committee. Indeed, I can make a double whammy and draw attention to the perversity of the fact that that Committee, which I do not recognise—indeed, the Clerk of the House made clear to Hutton that it is not a parliamentary Committee—has a Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who will not be paid a penny. He cannot be paid, because if he were, it would be an office of profit under the Crown and there would have to be a by-election in Torfaen. Nobody seems to have thought about such ridiculous anomalies. As we are only doing half our job, perhaps we should propose a motion setting up a parliamentary Committee on security and intelligence. If there are payments for Select Committee work then no doubt the Chairman of that Committee could receive payment, too. There is a big void in our scrutiny arrangements.
	People pray in aid the Senior Salaries Review Body. Has there ever been an occasion when a reference to that body met with the reply that not a penny extra should be paid? Of course not. Its members are the great and the good—the glitterati—who enjoy being part of that body. When they are invited to make a recommendation they always do so. I can give no credence to the fact that the SSRB has said that there should be payments. In any case, who are they to say that? They are not Members of Parliament. They do not know what goes on here or what the duties of a Member of Parliament are—the diligence, dilatoriness or otherwise of individual Members.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is not in the Chamber, but she is relevant to the debate. Motion 6 is absurd. Its genesis goes back to when the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) was a constant irritant to the Thatcher Government. The convention of service for two Parliaments was instigated at that time, but I cannot escape the conclusion that the Labour Government found the conduct and stewardship of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich an irritant, too. We should not go about things as the motion proposes.
	Soon there will be a casual vacancy of Chairman of a Select Committee in this Parliament. The expectation is that this Parliament will run for a long time. I am an optimist and I hope that after the next two elections Labour will win and that the next two Parliaments will be for four or five years. The person who fills the first casual vacancy as a Chairman could continue in office for 14 or 15 years.

Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman should not let his charming paranoia completely run away with him. There is a much simpler explanation, which I remember with great clarity. When the motion to pay Select Committee Chairmen was first tabled, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) tabled the amendment for an eight-year limit simply as a quid pro quo. His feeling, which was supported by the House, was that as a balancing factor to paying Select Committee Chairmen we should put some limitation on the length of time to which that should apply. It was as simple as that. There was nothing hidden—no conspiracy—and most people have been happy with that situation ever since.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for clarifying the history of the matter. In any event, I remain to this day implacably opposed to the payment of the Chairmen of Select Committees. I tabled a motion, which is on the Order Paper today, although it will not be selected, to repeal that decision. It is interesting that we were able to repeal other things on our hours. I wish that we could revisit that decision because that would a sensible and fair course.
	I mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich. She also intervened to pay tribute to the Chairmen of the Standing Committees. In case there is any misunderstanding, I also pay tribute to them. I recognise that they often require considerable concentration, precision and commitment to quite complicated issues. My limited experience was of chairing a special parliamentary Procedure Committee that was particularly fractious. One had to be conscious of the need to act almost in a quasi-judicial position and to ensure adequate time for the objectors to proposals to be able to articulate their case before Parliament. I found it a very demanding task.
	I do not want to denigrate the skills and dedication of our colleagues who fulfil that role as the Chairmen of Committees, but I return to the point that that is their choice, their style and their approach to the office of Member of Parliament. Some of us approach that in different ways. I cannot for the life of me understand how, in the 24 hours in a day, they somehow pedal faster. I suppose the job is so onerous that they could be given more Heineken to make them go faster.
	We are also creating new anomalies. When I intervened on the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), I asked about what would happen if a proposal was made to pay Opposition Members. That was a relevant question for me to ask, given that my case is to say, "Look, no further." If we go back and look at the Hansard when we debated paying the Chairmen of Select Committees, we see that hon. Members said that the next suggestion would be to pay the Chairmen of Standing Committees. How prophetic that was.
	There is creep, and if the House passes these motions tonight there will be further anomalies. For instance, does the person who runs the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the British-American parliamentary group or the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body not work extremely hard? Incidentally, the co-chairman of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, in which I take some interest, is paid in the Dail Eireann, so our representative sits next to someone who gets emoluments when our person does not. I am not suggesting that those people should be paid; I am just saying that new anomalies are being created at every stage.
	Ministers, not Members of Parliament, carry on being paid during general elections. I understand that our colleagues who are the Chairmen of Select Committees had a hiatus in their payments. When Parliament was dissolved, their salary plummeted—presumably, after this evening, it will pick up again—but that could have an impact of pensions in certain circumstances. We are told that Ministers need compensation—it is highly justified, we are told, but I do not accept that—when they leave office. If that principle is good for them, presumably, it will be advanced in respect of the Chairmen to whom we have already decided to pay salaries and those whose payments will probably be endorsed by the House tonight. Such creep is unhealthy, and I do not say that facetiously; I say it very seriously.
	I hope that the Minister will give us some indication in his reply about the arithmetic of what proportion of Members will be paid in addition to the Back-Bench Member's salary. Almost 90-odd members of the Government are paid extra, as are the Chairmen of Select Committee, and now the proposal is to pay the Chairman of Standing Committees. That would buttress my point about the fact that the proposal represents an unhealthy growth of patronage and the development of two tiers of Members of Parliament, which diminishes our democratic responsibilities.
	The other issue is the Liaison Committee, the Chairman of which has left the Chamber. I remember talking to a member of new Labour some time after the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) became Prime Minister. In fact, we were all new Labour, but that guy was hyper-new Labour. I told him that it would be a good idea if the Prime Minister appeared before a Select Committee. His response was, "Mackinlay, I now know that you're completely off your trolley." A few weeks later, the Prime Minister, to his eternal credit, said that he would appear before the Liaison Committee. That was an important departure, but, alas, people do not have ambition about providing scrutiny. I think that that Member has now received great advancement—I am very pleased for him—but he could not understand that it was logical that we should make such progress. The Prime Minister, to his credit, on his own initiative, said that he would submit himself for questioning before the Liaison Committee, but that Committee is clearly not the best vehicle. We should have a smaller Committee—

Gordon Prentice: With my friend on it.

Andrew MacKinlay: I think that the holy spirit will not go that far. That is testing faith to the limits. The Prime Minister should appear before a smaller Committee chosen by the House, rather than by those on the Front Benches. I hope that we will look into that in the coming years. It seems a natural development that that important constitutional innovation should involve not a very large group, but a small group of senior Members, who can focus on the issues.
	My final point relates to the Chairmen's Panel. My understanding is that, hitherto, hon. Members could be tested and invited to join to find out whether they could make a good stab at things. I imagine that there will be logistical problem in the future. Someone—I do not know whether it is you, Sir—invites hon. Members to serve, but regardless of whoever makes the selection or the invitation, those selected will cross the rubicon and they will need some time to familiarise themselves. Something will be lost if new members can no longer be invited to get a feel for chairmanship, probably by chairing a less fractious Committee, and so on.
	I cannot understand how the incremental scale, which I oppose anyway, is logical. If it is based on time, it does not reflect the volume or difficulty of work. I have mentioned the Crossrail Bill, which could be considered for a year. Probably, some new hon. Members will be sufficiently skilled almost immediately, like ducks to water, to preside over the Committee that considers that Bill, but that would involve a very long commitment. We will create new problems in selecting, recruiting and inviting people to preside over Committees by instituting that incremental system.
	For all those reasons, although the House is not packed, I hope that I may be able to persuade some hon. Members to join me in the Division Lobby tonight to oppose the proposition that not only discriminates against my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, in particular, but has been shown during the debate to be ill thought through, perverse and illogical. At the very least, we should send the homework back for it to be done again. We should reject the dreadful creep of creating two-tier Members of Parliament and making additional payments to some of our colleagues.

Nicholas Winterton: I respect the hon. Gentleman for the sincerity of his argument, but could he indicate how many businesses that people might enter at, say, the age of 22 or 23 will give them, after 25, 30 or 35 years' service, the same salary as is obtained and offered to someone who joins the company at the age of 22 or 23? Does he not believe that there should be some recognition of the responsibility and level of work undertaken by Members of Parliament?

Andrew MacKinlay: First, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that any comparison can be made between business—entrepreneurial functions, or pushing through great new innovations in the public sector—and our unique role as legislators and that of legislators throughout the world. I am open to correction, but I think that we would struggle to find any other Parliament that is setting up great differentials such as those that we are debating today.
	The hon. Gentleman's second point was about pay. There was a big queue to get my job. A lot of people wanted to be the Member of Parliament for Thurrock—both Labour candidates and those who stood against me. I signed up to the job and knew the price and the ground rules, so I am not complaining about the pay and rations. It is a great privilege to be here. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can suggest that we could translate something that happens elsewhere into our procedures.
	I return to the obsession with the idea that time served here somehow creates gravitas and makes people great parliamentarians. We all have different views about our conduct and stewardship here, but none of us can escape the fact that the way in which we behave here and our enthusiasm, or lack of it, will eventually be judged not by us, but by the people at the election. They should take the decisions, and we should not give little brownie points to our colleagues here in the way suggested. I hope that hon. Members will join me in the Division Lobby to resist the measure.

Eric Forth: I wish to move amendment (b) to motion 34 and amendment (b) to motion 35.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he can only speak to an amendment that has been selected by the Speaker.

Eric Forth: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Did I mishear the right hon. Gentleman? Does he wish to speak to amendment (a) to motion 34 and amendment (b) to motion 35?

Eric Forth: I apologise if I said (b) instead of (a), Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Nigel Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman is learning from experience.

Eric Forth: Yes, I am always prepared to be taught by Members with superior experience.
	I shall try to rise to the challenge posed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who quite properly asked why amendment (a) to motion 34 suggests that
	"the senior backbench member of the Chairmen's Panel shall also be a member of the Liaison Committee."
	I accept that that would be a departure. However, as has been pointed out several times during the debate, the House is in an evolutionary process. Several hon. Members have identified the Liaison Committee as a developing instrument of the House and there is no doubt that the roles that it has now taken on are radically different from those that it had even a few years ago. Most hon. Members agree that that is a good thing and I am sure that the fact that we are honoured to have the Father of the House chairing the Committee adds greatly to its effectiveness. The fact that the Prime Minister now appears before it is a testament to the enhanced role that it now has.
	Amendment (a) would make a modest yet important addition to the Committee's development. It reflects the different yet vital role that members of the Chairmen's Panel play in the House. Adding the senior Back-Bench member of the Chairmen's Panel to the Liaison Committee, as the amendment would do, would strengthen the Committee in several important ways.
	I shall now attempt to answer directly the question posed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. Members of the Chairmen's Panel have a unique and wide perspective. Anyone who has been on the Chairmen's Panel for a considerable time—the person identified in the amendment—must, by definition, have a lot of wide-ranging experience of chairing a substantial number of Committees considering Bills covering huge areas of policy. Additionally, by dint of being on the Panel, that Member would have considerable experience of procedure and many other aspects of the work of the House. Such experience would add to the effectiveness of the Liaison Committee in its deliberations and its questioning of the Prime Minister.
	There need be no great fear that this particular member of the Chairmen's Panel would compromise his or her impartiality by playing a political role with a different hat on. After all, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome pointed out, we all have to make that distinction from time to time in our different ways, not least the members of the Chairmen's Panel, who are able—effectively, I hope—to chair Committees with complete impartiality, yet still play a role in the Chamber and elsewhere as politicians. The amendment would be a modest but important step in further enhancing the role and effectiveness of the Liaison Committee, and it is in that spirit that I and the other signatories wish to move it at the appropriate time.
	Moving on to my second amendment, I should first make a declaration of non-interest. I am in the fortunate position of already being the Chairman of a Select Committee and therefore in receipt of the established payments to that chairmanship, which disqualifies me from payment as a member of the Chairmen's Panel. I therefore feel free to discuss, without embarrassment, the matters that I am about to embark on, which relate directly to payment of members of the Chairmen's Panel.
	I have always taken the view that we got this the wrong way around. I was always an advocate of payment of the Chairmen's Panel rather than of Select Committee Chairmen, because I took the view that Select Committee Chairmen already had a number of tangible privileges. They have a public profile and many of them travelled extensively on fact-finding missions, globally and intergalactically. I felt that that was probably reward enough. The members of the Chairmen's Panel, by contrast, do their work silently, surreptitiously and without public recognition, but they do essential work in the service of the House. Having now established the payment to Select Committee Chairmen, however, I believe that it is absolutely right and proper that we now move towards recognising the work of the Chairmen's Panel.
	As I understood it, the argument was about recruitment, retention and recognition of what the Panel does. In that regard, I wish that my other amendment, which sadly was not selected, was before the House, because it proposed that members of the Chairmen's Panel go straight on to the full rate of pay. As I suggested in an intervention, I am not aware of any other position, in government or in the House, where a probationary period has to be served. We do not ask Select Committee Chairman to serve on part pay before they are fully paid; nor do we ask Ministers to do that. Indeed, if I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker, you and your colleagues did not have to serve a probationary period before you got your well merited rate of pay.
	Suddenly we are moving into new territory. The argument, as I understand it, is that some measure of the effectiveness of the new Panel members has to be made before they can go on to the full rate of pay. I am not sure about the merits of that argument, but even if we accept that, I am afraid that the motion before us is a complete dog's dinner. The graduations suggested here are almost incomprehensible and would fail almost completely to meet the tests of recruitment, retention and recognition by their very definition. That is why the amendment in my name, which, happily, has been selected, recognises the probationary element—which I am reluctant to include, but inevitably, I think, have to—but makes it much simpler, cleaner and neater.
	The amendment simply says that if appointed to the Panel, one would get half-pay for two years, when a judgment would be made as to one's suitability. If one was not cutting the mustard, as they say, one would be quietly dropped—sacked, dismissed or whatever. If it was deemed appropriate for one to continue in that service, one would go on to the full rate of pay. That neatly provides fairness, effectiveness and, as it is not unduly complicated, comprehensibility. I hope that the amendment will have widespread support. I am happy that recognition is being made of the important role played by the Chairmen's Panel, but I do not think that the original wording fits the purpose, and I hope that I have persuaded Members that my simple solution is in order.
	I am conscious that other Members want to speak, so I shall wind up my remarks by saying a brief word about the nature of Select Committees, a subject that has been touched on several times—just to get my view on the record, for what it is worth. To make Select Committees more effective we should consider having equal numbers of Government and non-Government Members on them. That would be a major step in the right direction. Although I concede that it is proper that chairmanships to this or that Committee be allocated on a party basis, after that the Committee members should be able toelect their own Chairman from among their membership.
	That would go a long way to meeting the objections that many Members, such as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), have expressed, while retaining some proper party balance across the chairmanships. I would like to think that such things will be looked at further following our deliberations, and I hope that progress will be made in that direction.

Gordon Prentice: I had not intended to speak, but it has been such an interesting and engrossing debate that I thought that I would have my penny's worth. I want to pick up on what the Father of the House said.
	In our system, we have very strong government and we need strong scrutiny, a point that my Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) constantly makes. If we do not have strong scrutiny, we need to do something about it. I am sure that it is not unique to this Parliament, but we have a terrible curse of patronage. The stain spreads everywhere and we must clean up our act in so far as it is possible.
	On the powers of Select Committees, the Leader of the House quite casually dropped into the debate the important announcement that changes to the Osmotherly rules will be published tomorrow. Is not that amazing? The Osmotherly rules go to the very heart of our system. When my Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) wanted John Scarlett to appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee, he was told no. When he said, "We want John Scarlett and we can meet in camera", he was again told no. Then, along came Lord Hutton, who posted everything on the world wide web so that everybody all over the world could see it. Lord Hutton said to Scarlett, "Come before me", and John Scarlett dropped everything to do so. What do the Osmotherly rules do? They set out the framework within which civil servants and those in the Government sphere appear before Select Committees. It will be fascinating to see the new rules when they are published tomorrow.
	When the Public Administration Committee, on which I served in the previous Parliament and to which I have been fortunate to have been reappointed, was inquiring into Government communications, we summoned Alastair Campbell, as we were entitled to do. He said that he was on a speaking tour or some such thing and could not appear before us. We asked him to think again. I thought that that would become a great constitutional spat, but Alastair Campbell came before us and that went well. We cannot have people refusing to appear before Select Committees and we cannot have someone—whoever—telling Select Committees that people cannot appear before them, as in the case of John Scarlett.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am in very strong agreement with my hon. Friend, but I would be happy if the changes to the Osmotherly rules which we are told are about to be made included special advisers. My hon. Friend will remember that Select Committees have got into great difficulty when they have tried to call before them people who were not paid but who were special advisers and apparently had great influence.

Gordon Prentice: I did not make my point as clear as I should have done. When the Public Administration Committee summoned Alastair Campbell, he had ceased to be a special adviser at No. 10—I was going to say he had left the Government. That is an important point.
	It is very important that all political parties lodge in the Library of the House a memorandum setting out their procedures for appointing their party members to Select Committees. I would like the Labour party to do that, as I would the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and all the parties. I have suggested it before. When I was on the executive committee of the parliamentary Labour party, which is elected by all Labour MPs, I was constantly struck by how difficult it was to change the lists that came from the Chief Whip. A strange alchemy was used.

Nigel Griffiths: It has got better.

Gordon Prentice: I shall come on to that. If the parliamentary committee suggested any changes, we were told, "You have to watch the gender balance, which new Labour cares about." We were told that there was a regional balance or an experience balance to maintain; there was a balance between new Members and old Members, and so on. The situation was very difficult indeed.
	People who had been sacked from the Government could move seamlessly to the chairmanship of Select Committees. That was not acceptable then, and it is even more unacceptable now, given that Select Committee Chairmen will be paid an additional £13,100. The situation has changed, because the new parliamentary committee elected by the PLP only a few weeks ago has asserted itself and said that no Minister who has just been sacked or who has just left the Government can transfer seamlessly to the chairmanship of a Select Committee that is monitoring their erstwhile Department. We all welcome that change by the PLP.
	In most cases, Select Committee membership will increase from 11 to 14, which is too big. I think that 11 is good enough. However, we should do something about Select Committee members who do not turn up to meetings or contribute in any way. Given that some Members who would like to serve on Select Committees are unable to do so, that grieves me. Some Labour Members serve on two Select Committees—for example, a Departmental Committee and a House Committee. Some even serve on three Committees. I hope that we will revisit that problem after six or 12 months, once the new Members have found their feet and have woken up to the fact that Select Committee membership lasts for the entire four or five-year Parliament. People who serve on more than one Select Committee should be invited to stand down in favour of colleagues who do not serve on any.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who suggested that the rules on term limits were opaque. It is an incontestable fact that there are regular changes to the machinery of government. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was introduced for goodness' sake, and the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee brought together responsibilities for the environment and for agriculture. Who knows, in the course of this Parliament there may be changes in the Home Office, with justice responsibilities being hived off. Reconfigurations of Whitehall Departments feed through to Select Committees. As I have made clear, a new Select Committee is formed, but the original Chairman can continue to serve.
	Finally, on the business of additional salaries, I voted against the extra money for Chairs of Select Committees, but the proposal remains. As my Friend the Member for Thurrock said, function creep is taking place. It was only a matter of time before the members of the Chairmen's Panel clamoured for recognition, and I daresay that the proposal will be agreed. It is wrong, however, to introduce gradations that are supposed to reflect experience and the fact that some members are more distinguished than others. We do not need incremental salary scales. Like the old public service trade unions in the 1960s, we are introducing incremental salary scales to reflect length of service in the House. That is wrong, and I shall join my Friend the Member for Thurrock in the Lobby to vote against the proposal.
	Finally, I have always believed that the real Stakhanovites on the Chairmen's Panel would sit through Committees that last for weeks and months, keeping everyone in order—[Interruption.] Is it not like that? The scales fell from my eyes when my good Friend the then Member for Burnley, Peter Pike, who has now left this place, told me that he had frantic calls to chair the Committee considering the Hunting Bill. He was told that if he did not chair it, the Bill would fall because there was no one else available from the Chairmen's Panel to chair that sitting. He realised that if he chaired the Committee, he would lose the right to vote on the Hunting Bill when it came back to the Floor of the House of Commons. Peter Pike feels as strongly as I do on the issue, but because he had been approached and the situation had been explained to him, he put his views to one side and chaired the Committee.
	It is a little sad that we have to pay the Chairmen's Panel up to £13,000 to coax individuals to chair Committees. That is what is behind the proposal. The Peter Pikes of previous Parliaments are no longer available, so we have to pay people to take on the responsibility. That is unfortunate. We are creating different classes of Members and we do not need that.

John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gordon Prentice: I was about to finish, but I will.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so near to the conclusion of his speech. He inquired earlier, and he received no satisfactory response to his inquiry, about the basis on which Members are chosen for membership of the Chairmen's Panel or the basis on which, perhaps, they offer themselves. Has he ever offered to serve—unpaid, of course—on the Chairmen's Panel?

Gordon Prentice: I have not offered to join the Chairmen's Panel, and I have never received an invitation, either.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). Perhaps I could pick up a point that he made towards the end of his speech, which reflected what the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) said. They made it clear that they were opposed in principle to the payment of Select Committee Chairmen and that therefore they oppose what they call the "creep" represented by the motions on the Order Paper today. I shall try to persuade them both that what we are doing is right.
	Both hon. Members are good House of Commons men. One of the problems for the House of Commons is that, as new Members arrive, they tend to get drawn by the political and financial attraction of becoming Ministers. The principle of paying Select Committee Chairmen seeks to provide some gravitational pull the other way, so that the Government do not hoover up all the talent and there is an alternative career. I very much regret that the talents that both hon. Members have displayed this afternoon have been consistently overlooked by the Government, but I hope they recognise that there is an alternative career in the House. In order to add value to that alternative career, the decision that the House took a few years ago was the right one.
	I am delighted to see the newly appointed Chairman of the Committee of Selection, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch, East (Rosemary McKenna), in her place. She has taken to her new task like a duck to water, and I welcome what the Committee has done. Apart from her, I am the only non-Whip who attends the Committee of Selection, and it is rather like an atheist turning up at the General Synod.
	Perhaps I could reflect on the change of character of this debate, compared with the corresponding debate at the beginning of the previous Parliament. That was not a happy debate, as those who were there will remember. It was an animated debate and at the end the Committee of Selection's motions were overturned. Although we have taken longer than we should have this time round, the mistakes that were made in the last Parliament have been avoided—mistakes, may I say, mainly on the Government's side.
	What I was looking out for from the Committee of Selection was whether any Ministers who had recently lost their job had been parachuted on to Select Committees, and the answer was no. Have the minority parties had a square deal? On the whole, they have, and they are not represented on the Committee of Selection. What has happened to what I might call the awkward squad—the independent, fearless Members? Are they still on their Select Committees? For me, the litmus test was whether the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) was still on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and he was. As a relatively neutral member of the Committee of Selection, I concluded that it did a better job this time than last time. However, we can do even better next time by revisiting the Liaison Committee's recommendations, which involve a completely different means of choosing Select Committees. I was interested in the exchange at the beginning of the debate in which it was suggested that the Modernisation Committee might revisit that matter. In this Parliament, I hope that we have an opportunity to rerun a debate that we held in the previous Parliament, in which the proposition that we should move to a more independent system was narrowly lost. The Executive still have too much control over appointments to Select Committees, and the House of Commons should repatriate such decisions.
	I like the idea of a timetable, which was suggested by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Under his proposal, we would have a set timetable for the establishment of Select Committees. There would be no doubt about the target, which would prevent delay.
	On the Liaison Committee, I support the proposition that the Father of the House should be reappointed. He skilfully chaired the Liaison Committee in the previous Parliament, when we developed a new role of interrogating the Prime Minister.
	Subject to one qualification, I support the proposal that the senior hon. Member should join the Chairmen's Panel. If one examines the nominations for Select Committees, roughly half the Liaison Committee will consist of new hon. Members. There is a strong argument for continuity in the membership of the Liaison Committee as we continue to interrogate the Prime Minister. By adopting that proposal, we would achieve additional continuity on the Liaison Committee. I am pleased to hear that the Prime Minister has already been approached about finding a date in his diary to recapture the sitting that we missed in July, hopefully by holding an early meeting when we return in the autumn.
	In an earlier exchange on the Modernisation Committee, the Leader of the House was asked what it can do that the Liaison Committee cannot, and his answer was illuminating—"delivery". That answer is dangerous: the Modernisation Committee has delivered on measures that are sympathetic to the Government, but it has not delivered on measures that are sympathetic to the House of Commons, such as the vote in the previous Parliament on an alternative means of appointing Select Committees.

Mark Fisher: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is an extraordinary anomaly that what is supposed to be a Committee of parliamentarians is chaired by a member of the Government? There is no role for the Government in Select Committees, which are scrutiny Committees of this House. That is not a personal criticism of this Leader of the House or any previous Leader of the House, but there is no role for the Government in scrutinising themselves, and it is absurd that the Modernisation Committee should be chaired by a member of the Government.

George Young: I agree, and the case is even stronger than that. The Leader of the House, as a member of the Cabinet, is responsible for delivering the Government's legislative programme. It is quite wrong that that same person should chair the Modernisation Committee, which indicates how the House should process legislation, and that appointment is a clear short circuit of the system. The Procedure Committee, not the Modernisation Committee, should consider the matter, and it should be chaired by a Back Bencher. The House should decide how it addresses the legislative programme.

Mark Fisher: Although the Government are in some ways culpable, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the remedy is in our hands? If hon. Members had some spine and recognised our role as parliamentarians, we would use our ability to vote off such processes. We do not have to vote for a member of the Government becoming a member of a Committee of this House.

George Young: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I think that he will recognise that the power to change matters rests inevitably more with Government Back Benchers than with Opposition Back Benchers. I hope that he will use his substantial influence among his colleagues to persuade them of his case for reform.
	My final point concerns the Administration Committee. I welcome the appointment of an Administration Committee rationalising the domestic Committees that we had before. I used to find it somewhat odd that somebody who wanted to become a Member of Parliament, won an election, came here and wanted to hold the Government to account found themselves appointed to the Catering Committee. Given the pressure on Members' time, it must be right to streamline administration matters and have one Committee doing all those tasks, freeing up Members for more important jobs in holding the Government to account.
	I was impressed by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said in moving his amendment, and I shall listen to the arguments from Members on the other side of the House, but I am minded to support my right hon. Friend and the Chairman of the Speaker's Panel.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I must apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House, because my presence has been required on the Committee that is considering regulations to do with the Water Act 2003. My Whips informed me that it was a three-line Whip, and in case I had difficulty in recognising three lines on a piece of paper they carefully wrote it in words as well. I apologise to the House for my apparent discourtesy in nipping in and out during the speeches.
	Select Committees of this House have proved themselves, not only in the last Parliament but in previous Parliaments, to be a tremendous advance because they have the time and opportunity to scrutinise Government Ministers. Competent Ministers have no difficulty in dealing with Select Committees as long as they know their own subject, because they are prepared to engage in the sort of exchange that good scrutiny encompasses by explaining their policies and where they want to go with them and being prepared to take on difficult arguments. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Transport, who is not only happy to come and talk to us about the things that he wants to do but prepared to defend them. I will not say that he always takes notice of everything that my Committee says—would that he did—but he is extremely careful to engage it in discussing the detailed work of Government. What more can one ask of any Secretary of State? Some Ministers are capable not only of benefiting from the system of Select Committees but of producing positive results.
	However, I voted against paying Chairmen for a simple reason. Any Government, offered the opportunity to exercise patronage, in whatever form, will take that opportunity. It is not particularly surprising that when politicians are offered a weapon they use it, and in my experience they do so consistently.
	There are one or two things that the House of Commons should be very clear about. It is not acceptable for a Minister to leave Government and instantly move over to become the Chairman of a Select Committee, because what they are doing, in effect, is giving a verdict on the work that they have just performed, which inevitably means that, whatever their instincts, they will not come up with the degree of perception that is necessary for them to be a good Chairman. It is essential that we in this House insist that the rule—always unwritten but very clear—that chairmanships go to Back-Bench Members is supported in every conceivable way.

Andrew MacKinlay: I can see the Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) and I reassure him that I will gladly vote for the anointed Chairmen. However, in view of what has been revealed about casual vacancies and the impact of the rule that will be passed tonight, is not there a case for every one of us, at the Select Committees' inaugural meetings, to ask each Chairman to give an undertaking to take on the obligation for the lifetime of the Parliament and to spurn any offer of advancement from the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition? That is a reasonable proposition. It cannot be written into the rules, but I believe that Chairmen should give that undertaking.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have no difficulty in giving my hon. Friend a firm commitment that I have no intention of leaving the chairmanship of the Select Committee unless someone offers me the opportunity to be a hereditary duchess. I rather fancy the title Duchess Dunwoody of Crewe, which has an endearing music hall ring. However, I intend to stick with the Select Committee, no matter who tries to dissuade me.
	Select Committees operate best when their members and their Chairmen are Back Benchers, when their membership has a balance of all the relevant parties and when they understand that they are there to scrutinise—to ask the awkward questions and make them public. I therefore take issue with some of motions.
	The Liaison Committee did much work on the size of Committees, took evidence and worked with the Hansard Society to try to ascertain how Select Committees could be made better—"improved" is the word that I was looking for but nowadays English is out the window. I am therefore sad that Her Majesty's Government have gone for more than 11 members.
	I have served on and chaired Committees with more than 11 members. Unless one intends to extend the session to an unwieldy length, all the members cannot get in to question Ministers. That leaves the Chairman in the difficult position of either excluding some members, who have every right to ask questions, or allowing the person who gives evidence to escape proper scrutiny because one is trying hard to get members in, irrespective of the quality of the questioning. It is a recipe for disaster. We have been there and done that. The Liaison Committee produced a report, which carefully set out the reasons why we believed that big Committees were unworkable. Nevertheless, we appear to be reverting to the status quo ante. I hope that that will not be pushed. It is a retrograde, not a progressive step.
	The open manoeuvring on not only the membership but the chairmanship of the Committees does not reflect well on this place, even if it was slightly different from previous occasions. We ought to have had enough common sense last time to vote to retain the selection for Select Committees in the House of Commons. We should have had enough confidence in our judgment to accept that. The Whips Office comprises men and women of such superior intellect, tact, ability and charm that one could not under any circumstances criticise anything that they do. However, there is the odd occasion when the House of Commons would do better to decide for itself in the Chamber not only the membership but the chairmanship of Select Committees.
	There used to be an assumption that the Committee chose its Chairman. That was a pretty good system. In my time, before the Labour Government came to office, my Whips Office put me on a Select Committee to take the Chair. The then members had already decided that they wanted someone else and they voted the other person into the Chair. I accepted that with as much dignity as a short, fat Welsh woman can. It is vital that we get ourselves organised in regard to what we want from the scrutiny Committees. At the moment, that is not the case. We see-saw between accepting the usual channels arranging these matters and then saying publicly that we do not like the results.
	Many Members give many years of service without ever becoming a junior or middle-ranking Minister, but they are no less talented than those who progress through the Government system—believe me, I have watched this process for 30 years. Having been a junior Minister, I can say that those who frequently go in and out of Government are no more talented than those who are never offered such opportunities. I was even approached to join the Chairmen's Panel, and I served on it very happily for a long time. That, too, involved an arrangement that was difficult to evaluate. Nevertheless, it was an honour to serve on it, and I was glad that I was able to do so. Members of Parliament are no longer prepared to take on these duties. There is no longer the same degree of understanding. That is because we have created the totally artificial and, to my mind, unacceptable theory that a person can fulfil their role as a Member of Parliament only as a junior Minister in a large Department. That is a very short-sighted and limited attitude, and it is one that I do not want to see.
	The Select Committees operate best when they are a reasonable size, and when they are made up of Back Benchers who got there because they really have something to contribute, and want to do so. They operate best when the Chairmen are chosen by the members of the Committee, and when they are able to call before them people and papers in a wide and open manner, so that they cannot be told that they may not call special advisers because they are not paid, or that they may not call people who are known to be taking policy decisions but whose influence on the Government it is thought undesirable to demonstrate. Such Select Committees are an important part of the working of this place. They are something to be proud of, and we should stop trying to dilute them. We should not regard them as a dumping ground for people for whom we have no other occupation.

Mark Fisher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way in the dying moments of her speech. In her interesting, admirable and entirely correct list of characteristics of a good Select Committee, she mentioned the role of a Select Committee in choosing its own Chair. Am I missing something? Has that changed? We are selecting the members of a Committee; we are not selecting any Chairs. Surely there is nothing to stop a Committee nominating anyone among its number to be its Chair, the moment that it meets. Another arrangement might have been suggested to members of a Committee by other people, perhaps in the Whips Offices or on the Front Benches, but such suggestions are not binding. If the members of the Committee are of independent mind, it is up to them to select from among their number the Chairman who is most suited to the job.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: My dear, well educated and hon. Friend does occasionally display a degree of naiveté that I would hardly think possible in one so intelligent. Would that events took place as he describes. One thing that I deeply regret is the real erosion by both major parties of the rights of Back Benchers. When I first came here, it was possible on Fridays to vote on private Members' Bills—which could involve very controversial legislation—not because one party wanted that to happen but because the House wanted it to happen. When I came here, it was possible to accept that Select Committees chose their own Chairmen, although that has worked against me. It was also possible for Back Benchers to influence Government policy in a number of ways.

Richard Shepherd: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) told the truth: surely the answer to the membership and the selection of the Chair of these Committees lies in the membership of those Committees. The reflection is on us as representative Members of Parliament. That is what is being lost. Surely that was the substance of the hon. Lady's comments.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Absolutely. If in any way I implied, even as a joke, that I thought that that was not the case, I was totally wrong.

Andrew MacKinlay: In view of the intervention of our hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher), it is important to note that my hon. Friend and I can say that we have been there. We were part of the electorate for the late Robert Adley, who was not nominated by the Conservatives in 1992 to chair the   Transport Committee—I will not embarrass the distinguished Member who had been so anointed. The fact is, however, that we did revolt, and we still have that option. On this occasion, I indicated to the deputy Chief Whip, who is sitting close to your Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I would support the person who was anointed. That is my choice, as I am pleased that he has been so anointed. Each and every one of us, however, has an obligation to decide how we vote in Select Committees, and we should say to the Members concerned, "Will you give an undertaking that you will not take Government office from Mr. Blair or Mr. Brown during the lifetime of this Parliament?"

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I assure the House that my hon. Friend and I are indeed very revolting. The reality is that it was true—we supported the choice of a Conservative Chairman, because we thought that he was, as he proved to be, an excellent Chairman. Indeed, his report on the privatisation of British Rail still stands as one of the best criticisms. If only his Government had followed such recommendations we might not be in the current mess.
	The matter is in the House's hands. Why did Members, at the last opportunity, vote down taking the power back where it belongs? It is no use talking about the rights of Back Benchers if, when people are offered the opportunity, they either vote with their feet by going home, which is always a difficult political decision for many Members, or they vote to keep their chains. That is indescribably sad. A lot of Back-Bench powers have been lost. We have quietly allowed those in control to take away from us, with the acquiescence of those who should know better, several powers that meant that independent Members of Parliament could have an impact. We will regret that, and some of us regret it already. Some of us tend to stick on because we think that when the oral memory of the House is lost, new Members will not know what it is possible to do. Until we reach the point at which Members themselves restore the powers, we shall be in continuing difficulty.

John Bercow: As far as I am concerned, this is not a personal matter. I have nothing against the Government Whips, and relatively little against my own. I strongly object, however, to the time that it has taken to reconstitute the Select Committees, and to the manner in which it is proposed this afternoon to do so.
	My starting point has been articulated by several right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House—the significance of the Committees. The Committees have an absolutely invaluable role, if only we dared to recognise and demonstrate the fact. That role is scrutiny of the Executive, of the quality of their policies, of the effectiveness of their administration and of their expenditure of taxpayer's money. When the context for the debate is set out in those simple and unmistakeable terms, it seems to me to underline the House's criminal neglect of its responsibility to get the Committees up and running earlier than we have done.
	It is, I think, 69 days since the general election, and tomorrow it will be 10 weeks since polling day. It is 57 days since the Loyal Address and the opening of the debate on the Queen's Speech. To those who say, "Well, we haven't done too badly this time; the process could have been more protracted than it has proved. We did a bit better on this occasion than we did on the last", I say that that is unduly complacent. Frankly, we could have done a lot better, and I make no bones about the fact that in apportioning blame, I attribute the bulk to the system and to those charged with its administration—apparently, they are only too happy to be so charged—the Whips.
	It is wrong that the composition of Committees whose purpose is to scrutinise the Executive should be determined by representatives of that Executive. Members who know me know that I try to be dispassionate and fair-minded. I am not interested in making a purely party political point, any more than the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) is; frankly, the issues are far too salient and pressing for that. Fundamentally, this is a clash between Front Benchers and Back Benchers in all parts of the House.
	I hope that Government Back Benchers will not cavil or object when I say that the inappropriateness of Executive control is particularly acute where the Government are concerned. The reason why is simple. Government Whips choose who scrutinises other representatives of the Government. The Government run the country and introduce policies, and they have a range of powers that, frankly, do not apply to the Opposition, so it is particularly serious when Government Whips decide who scrutinises their ministerial friends and colleagues.
	That said, I do not in any sense think that the representatives of Opposition Front Benchers can be exonerated from responsibility. Members know perfectly well that many of these matters are determined on a consensual basis behind the scenes, between what we call "the usual channels". So that we do not talk in terms that mean absolutely nothing to people outside this place—who think when we refer to the usual channels, "What on earth are they talking about?—we ought to make it explicitly clear that we are talking about the Government Whips Office and the Opposition Whips Office.
	It is quite wrong for Opposition Whips to determine who participates in Select Committees. I have to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker—despite your vast and varied experience in this place, I feel certain that you will be shocked by the revelation that I am about to vouchsafe—that one Opposition Whip said recently to me that he personally was keen that a particular Member, who had previously been, surprise, surprise, in the Whips Office, should be appointed to a given Select Committee with a view, perhaps, if all went well, to that individual's becoming the Chairman of said Committee. He gave the following reason. "We think it important"—I am not quite sure whom he meant by "we", but presumably he was speaking for Front Benchers—"to strengthen co-operation between that Select Committee and the relevant shadow Secretary of State and his team." That strikes me as absolutely wrong. Just as it is wrong for the Government to seek to "nobble" a Select Committee in order to defuse criticism of the Executive, so it is wrong for Opposition Front Benchers to seek to steer membership or chairmanship of the Committees in a greater, lesser or different way than would otherwise have been the case, in order to oppose the Government.

Eric Forth: If the system is as invidious and insidious as my hon. Friend suggests, how is it that he has been recommended for membership of the International Development Committee, which I suspect he wanted very much?

John Bercow: I make it absolutely clear to my right hon. Friend that I strongly object to the way in which it is being done. To answer his question, I shall hazard a guess. The answer is probably that representatives of the Opposition Whips Office think that I am marginally less of a nuisance if I am busying myself with the important work involved in membership of the International Development Committee than if they were thoroughly to brass me off by denying me that membership. I must say to my right hon. Friend, who has never been a lackey at any time, that I made it clear all along to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), the deputy Chief Whip, who is sadly not in his place—if he were, he would be visible—[Interruption.] He is in the Tea Room, I am told. I told him that I did not believe that it should be done in that way. What I think about the operation of the Whips in these matters is well known.
	Of course the Whips will not voluntarily relinquish their power. They have the power; they exercise it; they enjoy its exercise; and they go about the House feeling a sense of fulfilment. After all, they are very senior, very respected, very influential, very busy and consequently have very full diaries.

Andrew MacKinlay: And they are paid!

John Bercow: Yes, they are paid as well, as the hon. Gentleman helpfully observes from a sedentary position. In response to the inevitable inquiry, "Grandma or Grandpa, what did you do today?", the Whips will be able proudly to say to their grandchildren, "Well, I managed to stitch up the membership of a Select Committee, and we had to make a choice between the good boys and good girls on the one hand and the bad boys and the bad girls on the other." An intelligent grandson or granddaughter will say, "Oh, I understand what you mean, Grandpa—that the good boys and good girls are those who ask helpful and intelligent questions and go about their work and responsibilities independently of the respective Front Benchers". At that point, the senior Whip will say, "No, no, no, you quite misunderstand the purpose of our work in constructing Select Committees. We want people who are, in Sir Humphrey's terms, 'sound'—people who will do things in a way that we approve of".

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend is right, but there is another point to be made. The Whips Office controls the parliamentary party—or, at least, tries to control it—and one of the ways it does so is through the use of patronage. It is one of the least attractive features of parliamentary life today and it is a reason why we should have nothing to do with allowing the Whips Office to choose the composition of Select Committees.

John Bercow: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. I do not know whether the sensation has afflicted other right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon, but the infuriating thing for me is that we have been here before. This afternoon, I feel as though we are playing a very long-running tape all over again. To put it another way, I have the sensation that I am once again, after a gap of about 15 years, reading that magnificent novel by Kafka—"The Trial", in which K is treated appallingly by the bureaucracy and goes round in circles. There is also his other magnificent tome, "The Castle", in which the hero thinks that he is advancing closer and closer to it, but on every step towards it that he takes, he discovers that he is a step further away than he was before. Well, I have that sensation, Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to the composition of Select Committees.
	We have had these debates before. As long ago as July 2001, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who was then the Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), who was then shadow Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who was not then but is now the Father of the House, all argued that the process needed decisive reform, and needed it then. Four years later, that has not happened and there appears to be no enthusiasm among those on the Front Benches for it. What is even more depressing is that there is insufficient enthusiasm for reform on the Back Benches on both sides of the House. That is what is urgently needed.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman picked on the wrong author. Is there not a stronger resemblance to what happens in "Alice Through the Looking Glass"?

John Bercow: I must say that the literary reference that the hon. Lady has invoked is probably better than mine. I had a recollection of the Kafka novels, but the hon. Lady is right that this is an absurd way in which to operate. The truth is that we can have many nuances on a theme, but in the end the real argument is about whether we opt for appointment or for election.
	I accept that there the scourge of Whip domination is objectionable. In the nicest possible spirit, however, I say to the House—and to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who spoke about this earlier—that I do not think that the other proposals for reform are satisfactory either.
	The House will recall that the Liaison Committee report "Shifting the Balance" of March 2000 said that the system was wrong and needed to be changed so that it was independent of the Executive. It proposed that a trinity of very senior and distinguished hon. Members should make up a panel to which aspirant members of Select Committees could appeal. That might be marginally better than allowing the Whips to dictate membership, but it is still a poor and unsatisfactory way to proceed. That would amount to a system of patronage in itself, and hon. Members desperately keen to get on a Committee would feel that they had to ingratiate themselves with the panel.
	Subsequently, in February 2002, the Modernisation Committee recommended that a committee of nine hon. Members should act as a filter for applications for Select Committee membership. I do not approve of that either. The systems that I have described are alternative and only marginally less objectionable forms of patronage. Sherlock Holmes said that, when all other possibilities have been eliminated, the remaining possibility, however improbable, must be the truth. In this case, the remaining possibility is that the House will decide to take the composition of Select Committees into its own hands—that is, it will determine that composition by election.
	We can go about that in various ways. One possibility, which I do not necessarily advocate, is that the process should be a complete free for all, in which all hon. Members have the right to vote for all the members of all Select Committees, with no reserved rights for Opposition or other minority parties. I accept that there would be a danger that hon. Members would vote in avery partisan way and that Select Committee membership would be skewed as a result.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has proposed that the conduct of these matters should be vested in the hands of Mr. Speaker, but I believe that it would quickly become evident that that was not entirely satisfactory or fair. Speedy amendments and revisions of that process would probably be made, but that option is what might be called the pure democratic model.
	A second, alternative method would be to protect the respective strengths of the parties in the House, in terms of the numbers of Select Committee members—or Chairmen, or both—that are allocated to the parties. However, all hon. Members would still be allowed to vote for all members of the Select Committees, subject to the understanding that, depending on the strength of the parties' representation in the House, the Government party will have, say, seven members of a Committee, the main Opposition three and a minority party one.
	If we are committed to the principle of democratic engagement, the seam is pretty rich. A third possibility is that we say that members of the Conservative party will vote only for Conservative members of a Select Committee, that Labour Members will vote only for Labour members, and so on.
	I confess that I prefer the second of those options. I believe that all hon. Members should elect Select Committee members, subject to some protections for the minority parties. The system is not perfect, and it could be amended subsequently. Yes, there is a danger—possibly even a likelihood—that the first set of elections would not achieve the necessary balance between geography, gender, youth and experience, and so on. Nevertheless, under that system, the House would decide who should be on the Select Committees that scrutinise the Executive.
	It baffles me constantly that in an age in which the pervasive principle of democratic legitimacy applies we seem always to find an excuse for not applying it in the context of composing the Committees that we so value.

Richard Shepherd: I hope that my hon. Friend will take my comment in the spirit in which it is intended, but his elegant ruminations could have found expression on the Order Paper and we would have had an opportunity to vote on them.

John Bercow: Well, my answer is that I was happy to go along with the credible proposal made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, which allows for a degree of flexibility, under the auspices of Mr. Speaker, as to how the method of election would operate. Insofar as my hon. Friend has, gently or otherwise, rebuked me, I do not think that the rebuke is actually fair, because the hon. Gentleman has provided for a system of election.
	In essence, we have to ask ourselves whether we want to will the means of change. I do. If Members want to be respected, we have to show respect for ourselves. If we want our Select Committees to be credible, we have to give them credibility. If we want them to be effective overseers of Government policy and to hold Ministers to account, we have to recognise that they will be far more effective and respected in fulfilment of that role if they enjoy the support of the House. It would not work perfectly, but it would work a lot better than the present arrangements.
	If we wait for Government Whips or Opposition Whips to say, "We will give up our power", we will wait for eternity. Even waiting for the Leader of the House or shadow Leader of the House to make the change will not work.

Andrew MacKinlay: I say in all seriousness to the hon. Gentleman that in the past two weeks, we have seen a seismic shift in the way the procedure happens in the Labour party, and I am proud of that. It is not the end, but probably only the beginning of the end, but—and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House mentioned Labour's selection process earlier—we can say that a shift has happened. That should be written up by political journalists. It means that I and many others are being recommended to the House for the membership of Select Committees on the initiative of our peers, our Back Bench representatives, our shop stewards. That is a healthy development and should be put on the record, because we can all be justifiably proud of that advance.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is right. He may think, and others may agree, that I am being slightly uncharitable. I did not mean to be, but if I have been, I am prepared to acknowledge it.
	I recall that in July 2001 the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, who is now of course our esteemed Father of the House, objected to the idea that ex-Ministers should be parachuted in as members and, immediately, Chairmen of Select Committees. He said, in a telling phrase, that a Select Committee chairmanship should not be regarded as "palliatives for injured pride". He made the point that being a Minister involved all sorts of great advantages and privileges and, once someone ceased being a Minister—in the full knowledge that that was bound to happen sooner or later in the slippery slope business that is politics—he or she should be pleased to have served and should not expect any particular preferment.
	I would go further and say, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) did, that precisely because an immediate past Minister would lack a perception of what is required—I would go further and say that they would lack the dispassionate interest that is necessary for effective Committee membership and, especially, chairmanship—such people should be ruled out. From looking at the Order Paper and hearing about the subterranean and private methods of the Labour party, I welcome the fact that a decision appears to have been made along those lines. No ex-Ministers have been so parachuted, and that is a good thing. I still feel, however, that we have not had the culture shift that we need.
	I say that because of a good-natured and illuminating exchange that I had with the Leader of the House much earlier in the debate. He was talking about how the Labour party was being pretty democratic, transparent and fair, as the hon. Member for Thurrock just said. The right hon. Gentleman said that Labour had a pretty open process. There was just one problem: I asked the Leader of the House to divulge the secret. I wanted to know exactly how the Labour party goes about the process. The right hon. Gentleman laughed and seemed genuinely quite amused by my question, and said that if he told me how Labour did it I might be prepared to tell him how the Opposition did it. Actually, it was a deadly serious question. I was in no sense casting aspersions; I was not even being cynical. All I wanted to know was how the parliamentary Labour party goes about the process.
	I have not been invited to a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party—[Interruption.] and I am making no application to attend such a meeting now or at any time—but I suspect that the PLP probably goes about things in a more transparent and democratic way than my party. All I wanted to know was what the procedure was. The interesting point was that the Leader of the House immediately took refuge in the notion that how Labour does it is purely a matter for Labour—in essence, a private question. I would put the point differently. I believe that the way the Labour party does it is important business for Labour, but it is important to the House as well. How the Tory party does it is important business for the Tory party, but it is important for the House as well. I readily tell the Deputy Leader of the House that how we do it is his business. He is perfectly entitled to probe and scrutinise and, if he thinks our procedure is less democratic, to chide. I believe that our process needs vastly to be improved.
	The Conservative Chief Whip sends a note to all Members with a list of Committees and asks us to specify upon which Committee or Committees we wish to serve. It is possible to lobby. I admit that I said two things to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire: first, that I strongly disapproved of the whole method and, secondly, that in the event that I was kicked off the Select Committee on International Development, he would inevitably find that I had a vastly greater amount of time to devote to all the other political interests on which I might conceivably have independent-minded views that I was inclined to express. My right hon. Friend, for reasons unknown to me, decided that my application for continuing membership of the Committee was acceptable, but the notion that he should determine whether I serve on the Committee is quite wrong.
	I should be perfectly happy to subject myself to the will of the House, as other right hon. and hon. Members should be prepared to do. If the House took the view that I did not have much to contribute and that it was not much interested in my views, expertise or background in the subject of international development and that other people were to be preferred for membership of the Committee, I should accept that without complaint. What I dislike is the notion that a small coterie of people in whom excessive power is vested should, for all sorts of reasons that they have neither a responsibility nor frequently an inclination to explain, be able to decide that Bloggs will serve and Smith will not, or the other way round. That is a hopelessly antiquated, fossilised, old-fashioned and undemocratic way to operate.
	The House of Commons must decide whether it wants to be a serious, modern, forward-looking, transparent and accountable democracy. I believe that it should be. We should not have this debate again in four years' time. We must change the system and we must trust Members. Some decisions will be good and some will be bad, but it will be a better system. Let us dip our toes in the sea and discover where that leads us. If we are too frightened to free ourselves from the chains of Government domination, we have no right to complain.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) pointed out that strictly speaking the determination of the chairmanship of a Committee is a matter for its individual members. He is right. We should assert ourselves, but would not it be better if there were a recognition throughout the House that the process should be open, transparent and democratic, and that no hint of Government whipping, cajolement, enticement, bullying or threat should enter it at all?

Mark Fisher: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who is a truly independent-minded Member. I am not sure whether to rejoice with him in his membership of a Select Committee, which, I hope, we are about to endorse in a few minutes, or to commiserate with him about the fact that he has been gagged by his Whips from displaying his independence on an even wider platform.

John Bercow: I used that line with the deputy Chief Whip to try to persuade him that it was probably in his interest to allow me to continue to serve on the Select Committee, but if it is of any interest to the hon. Gentleman, I will endeavour to find enough time to pontificate on other matters as well.

Mark Fisher: I would be amazed if that were not the case.
	As the hon. Gentleman said there is an element of déjà vu about the debate. Looking around the Chamber, I see in attendance hon. Members who have debated the issues that lie behind the debate time and again over the years. Those issues are the quality of scrutiny and the independence of Members of Parliament. The only thing that is rather sad is that, throughout most of the debate, only one or two new Members have been in attendance—that is to their credit—but in a Parliament where I have been surprised that the new Members on both sides of the House have been assiduous in their attendance in other debates, it is very sad that they are not attending this debate because it is about the quality of scrutiny and their role as Members of Parliament throughout their time in the House. Anyone listening to the debate or who reads the report of it will learn quite a bit about those issues from the enormous amount of experience that Members, such as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), have had in trying to tease out such issues.

Douglas Hogg: In a sense, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree that what the debate illustrates is that the political parties have been captured by their Front Benchers. Until political parties recover power from their Front Benchers, in truth, this Parliament is but a rubber stamp.

Mark Fisher: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I wholly agree with him on that. That will be burden of my remarks, which I hope will be brief to give other hon. Members the opportunity to speak. I had not realised that the debate was time limited, and I will endeavour to be very brief.
	The hon. Member for Buckingham had an interesting exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about the relative relevance to the debate of Lewis Carroll and Franz Kafka. Although it was amusing and enjoyable to hear their literary expertise displayed, both of them were right to suggest that both those authors' books show a nightmare vision of a world turned upside down. That is what we are seeing in the House at the moment.
	As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, we are fast becoming a House that rubber-stamps political parties. It is hardly surprising that the public have less and less respect for the House and, indeed, for politics generally when the idea of independent parliamentarians is in such decline. That is what the debate is about, and it is why analogies to the bleak and serious vision of the world of both Lewis Carroll and Franz Kafka are very good to draw.
	Given the shortage of time, I will not go into the details of the debate—the method of selection for membership, the pay of Chairmen and so on—important though they are. They are emblematic of a number of issues, and it has been a good, interesting and experienced debate on them. The Father of the House put the whole issue in a wider context in his contribution about the importance of Select Committees; their role in scrutiny, as the hon. Member for Buckingham has said; and, crucially, their independence. That is what we should be debating, and we have been doing so this afternoon.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said in a characteristic, intelligent, very gentle and courteous speech that his criteria for determining whether this dispensation of Select Committees has achieved greater independence was that there are no ex-Ministers, where it has succeeded; that minor parties should be well represented, where it has also succeeded, and that the awkward squad on both sides of the House should be represented. He cited my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who is certainly a fully paid-up member of the awkward squad, but he did not mention my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who has made a particular and professional contribution to our debates on science and technology, as most hon. Members realise, yet amazingly is not among those selected. It might be said that this dispensation is a marginal improvement on previous dispensations of Select Committees members, but the fact of the matter is that the thumbprints of those on the Front Benches are as evident as they have ever been, albeit in a marginally different way.
	Much as I respect the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, he should have set tougher criteria to judge whether the way in which the Select Committees were chosen was truly independent. We should not judge the independence of individual hon. Members, but whether this generation of Select Committees will be fearlessly independent of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich rightly said that one way in way such independence could be indicated would be if Committees were able to choose their own Chairs. She chided me for what I suggest was calculated naiveté, but Committee members do have such a power in their grasp. On the first day that the Committees meet, their members can choose their own Chairs. I doubt whether they will do that, but they should. If they do not, they must recognise that they are simply being directed by their Front Benches.
	Why should the Chairman of the Modernisation Committee be a member of the Government? It is outrageous for any Committee that is set up to scrutinise the Government independently to have any Government Ministers on it, let alone the Committee that discusses the whole future of the Chamber and the House. That has nothing to do with the Government because this is our House. The Executive have their own role and function in our constitution, but it is not running the business of the House.
	We should have more Joint Committees with the other place, although only one is being selected today. Both the other place and this House are set up to scrutinise the Government. We have complementary roles and interests, so Joint Committees are an important part of the process. Too often Members of our House and the other place see themselves as being in competition, but that is wholly in the interest of the Executive because it gives them an easy time. Scrutiny of the Government should be parliamentary scrutiny—not scrutiny by the Commons or the Lords, but by Parliament. When we scrutinise the actions of the Executive, it is in the interests of rigour and the good name of Parliament to work together.
	The most crucial criterion that should be used to judge the independence of Select Committees is the fundamental question of who runs the business of the House. That will not be determined by the Select Committees, so we should have a business Committee, as the Scottish Parliament does. The Government should of course be represented on such a Committee because they have an absolute right to the time that they need to get through the programme for which they have a mandate, but the idea that they should dictate when the House sits, what it debates and when we debate it is absolute nonsense. That is not the business of the Government. The Government's business is to run the country and to suggest taxation and action programmes, but it is not to run either of the Houses of Parliament. Until we have a business Committee through which we take responsibility for our own business, we will always be ciphers. We understandably lost that ability in the late 19th century due to the astute parliamentary work of Mr. Charles Parnell, but we must regain it if we are to regain our independence.

Douglas Hogg: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on one matter. He says that the Government have an absolute right to get through their mandated business, but they do not. The fact that something is in a manifesto does not give a Government an overwhelming right, and in any event, they must allow sufficient time for discussion.

Mark Fisher: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. What I intended to say is that the Government—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder whether we could confine our remarks to Select Committees and the matters on the Order Paper.

Mark Fisher: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall just correct myself. I meant to say that Government have the right to the time to try to get their business through. I accept your admonition and I shall draw my remarks to a close so that other hon. Members can contribute.
	It is very sad that there are so few new Members in the House, but it is to the credit of the new Member who is here that he is listening to this debate. We have to decide whether we are parliamentarians or just simply representatives of our political parties. Obviously, we are both. That interesting paradox is inherent in our roles, and it leads to many good conclusions. However, we must remember that we are parliamentarians as well as representatives of our parties.
	During the last Parliament I took part in an extraordinary radio debate with another member of the parliamentary Labour party. That person, when asked by the interviewer whether they were a parliamentarian, was outraged and said, "I am not a parliamentarian; I am a Labour Member of Parliament. I am sent here to vote for the Government, not to think for myself and be a parliamentarian." That Member was outraged by the idea that they should be considered anything other than a Labour Member of Parliament who voted with the Government 100 per cent. of the time. Therein lies our problem.
	Of course Members on both sides of the House want to be loyal to the party of which many of us have been members for 20 or 30 years—or, in my case, over 40—but we are here to scrutinise Government as Members of Parliament as well. If we do not stand up and shake off the shackles of our Front Benches during this Parliament, we will lose yet more years and yet more independence. These are very important issues. This Parliament must assert our distinct identity—our role is different from that of the Executive—and we do so particularly through these Select Committees. We will vote these motions through tonight, and I hope that when the Select Committees operate, they bear it in mind that they have a sacred role in the independent, rigorous scrutiny of Government policy.

Mark Harper: I want to make one point, which, given the time that we have left, I hesitate to dwell on. I would be grateful if the Minister elaborated on the term limits for Chairmen. As a new Member, I am still not entirely clear on exactly the period that one can serve. We need to clarify when in a Parliament that period starts so that we are clear about the exact time that someone can serve.
	That point highlights another contradiction in a number of the motions: the concept of having term limits for Chairmen and paying members of the Chairmen's Panel. On the latter motion, one of the arguments for paying Standing Committee Chairmen was that with time served in the House came experience and wisdom. If that is true, it seems a little foolish artificially to limit the period for which one can serve as a Chairman of a Select Committee, as it would seem that the same argument should apply to the wisdom and experience gained in that role over time.
	The main point that I want to make concerns the importance of scrutiny in the House. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said that it was incredibly important that the House took scrutiny seriously. It is true, I think, and it may be sad—the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that it was disappointing—that Members of the House are not prepared to take on duties and chair Standing Committees. We may have to accept that if the House is to take scrutiny seriously, we need to provide an alternative career structure for Members, one in which they can come into the House and see chairing a Select Committee or Standing Committees and taking part in the business of the House as something that they want to do as a career rather than necessarily wanting to achieve a position in government.
	It may be that, in the past, people were willing to do that without remuneration, but it seems from remarks that I have heard from experienced and distinguished Members that that is less true nowadays. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) that it may, sadly, be necessary to pay people to be Committee Chairman to enable sufficient Members of sufficient calibre to take on those tasks and allow scrutiny to take place.
	I will draw my remarks to a close because I would like to allow a couple of minutes in this time-limited debate for my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for the Minister to wind up. I have enjoyed listening to hon. Members, and it is a shame that more new Members were not present to listen to some distinguished speeches.

Richard Shepherd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper). I will be extremely brief, for reasons that are obvious.
	I draw the House's attention to motion 33 on Modernisation of the House of Commons. The House has talked about scrutiny; the whole process is about scrutiny. At the heart of scrutiny is this Chamber. When Members vote for this motion, I ask them to reflect on the fact that among those appointed to the Committee is one Mr. Geoffrey Hoon. Mr. Geoffrey Hoon is a Minister; he is the Leader of the House. That illustrates best the way in which this Chamber and this Parliament are controlled. The Modernisation Committee is no more an independent Committee than a fly in the air. That is the truth of the matter.
	The restrictions and the motions, to the disadvantage of the Procedure Committee, which has been sidelined by so many of them, originated in the Modernisation Committee. This House should look very carefully at what the Modernisation Committee does. The reason why we have been reduced to systematic guillotining of Bills originated in the Modernisation Committee. The Committee that we shall vote for in a moment has been the instrument by which the Government have seized total control over the timetabling of business, and this House can stand for or represent very little if we cannot unpick that which is brought before us in the form of motions, orders and Bills.
	I draw to the attention of the House the fact that a Minister of the Crown who is responsible for the business of this House constructs and has constructed the very motions on the Order Paper that many Members present have resented, argued against and tried to bring to the sense of a wider House. This House is nothing unless it stems from ourselves. As I have always said, we are temporary Members of this House, but we are passing on very much a diminished inheritance. Yet, there is value in Select Committees and the value afforded by expressing those views on the Floor of the House is all too often lost because of the work of the Modernisation Committee.

Nigel Griffiths: It is a particular pleasure to respond to the debate, because it has been both well-informed and broadly good-natured. I know that some mock modernisation in this place, but I was one of the Members who, for the first three months on being elected, did not have a desk or a phone but had a place to hang my sword. Many Members went through that experience, so there have certainly been improvements.
	I welcome the broad support that has been offered to us by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the shadow Leader of the House, and I will cover his points first and then embrace some of the other points made and answer some of the questions that have been put to me.
	The proposal to remunerate Chairmen of Standing Committees has been advocated by the Senior Salaries Review Body. Its report advocated a two-tier panel, with higher payments, but did not find fault with the proposed tiered structure of payments if that was the wish of the House. It agreed with the principle of linking pay to workload, which is why we have done so. Apprenticeships were mentioned disparagingly, and it was said that they did not apply to ministerial positions. In fact, they do—we have junior Ministers and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries, Ministers of State and Cabinet Ministers. Those three levels of responsibility are reflected in three different levels of pay.
	The House will wish to examine the code of conduct for Chairmen of Standing Committees, and I hope that the Standards and Privileges Committee has a chance to look at it. In response to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, 1 November has been set as an implementation date, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed that.
	A number of hon. Members raised the proposal that a member of the Chairmen's Panel should serve on the Liaison Committee. That Committee, however, is relatively political. By contrast, the Chairmen of Standing Committees are entirely neutral, as are the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers. I am therefore not sure that their involvement in the Liaison Committee is appropriate.
	The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who has considerable experience of the House and its procedures, suggested that there is no incompatibility between membership of the Chairmen's Panel and the work of the Liaison Committee, but I do not share that view. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell spoke about the two-term rule, and a number of colleagues asked for clarification. There is consensus that Select Committee Chairmen should serve for no more than two terms. We must, however, look at recent circumstances to understand why the eight-year rule was introduced. A Select Committee Chairman who was appointed in 1970 would serve until the end of the Parliament in 1974. If they were reappointed by the will of the House for the Parliament of February to October 1974, without the eight-year rule, they would then complete their two terms of office. With the rule, however, they would go on to serve for a further four years in the next Parliament until 1978, before handing over to their successor. A number of hon. Members said Select Committee Chairmen should complete their term of office only when a Parliament ended. Previous Speakers have chosen to hand over to their successor before a Parliament ends so that the new Speaker can gain experience in the Chair. Select Committee members—I accept that they are the individuals who are most likely to become Select Committee Chairmen—may have distinguished service, but they do not necessarily have experience of chairmanship.
	I shall give another example to demonstrate how far the elastic band of time can stretch. If a Committee Chairman was selected in 1981, two years after the Conservative Government had been elected, they could, if it were the will of the House, serve the full term from 1993 to 1997 and then from 1997 to 2001, making a total of 11 years' service. We therefore hope that the House will agree with the important principle behind our proposals.

Mark Harper: The Minister's example illustrates why some Members are confused. It would be straightforward to set a limit of two terms or eight years, whichever was the greater, but it makes no sense and is very confusing if someone who is selected to chair a Select Committee part way through a Parliament can get those extra few years, in addition to another two terms. If we are to have a rule, it should be two terms or eight years, whichever is the greater, or the proposal from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), whereby the term of appointment runs through to the end of the Parliament. It should not depend on the randomness of the date on which the Chairman was selected.
	In his opening speech the Leader of the House used the phrase "by chance" a great deal. We should have more certainty in our proceedings, rather than leaving them to chance.

Nigel Griffiths: The House is rather good at learning from experience. I have set out how the motion would have worked historically. I hope that it commands the support of the House, and that the House would not want to axe a Member who had not had the chance to benefit from two full terms or, as in the example that I gave from 1992, unnecessarily curtail the Member's term of service to the Committee.

Andrew MacKinlay: My hon. Friend's 1974 scenario does not stack up. After a short Parliament, the new Parliament could, with unanimity, revise Standing Orders to meet that set of circumstances. It would disregard the previous Parliament. I have to say to my hon. Friend, "Come off it.". He is struggling to use the 1974 case as an argument.

Nigel Griffiths: I am sorry that I have not convinced my hon. Friend. I did not think I was struggling to use the example as an argument. The term limitation on Chairmen of Select Committees is designed to stop people, no matter how competent, being appointed almost in perpetuity, or as long as they are Members of the House. That is why we are trying to lay down rules which, I believe, will work to the advantage of the House and are fairly simple and straightforward, but give the flexibility that a common-sense approach would allow.
	Let me move on to some of the other issues that were raised. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell raised the time taken to set up Select Committees and compared that to 2001, but it is not a fair comparison. Since I was appointed Deputy Leader of the House, I have tried to avoid hurtful phrases, so I shall say that the result this time for the hon. Gentleman's party was less disastrous than in 2001. It necessitated at least three changes to the way in which we approached Select Committees. There have been negotiations between the parties on the size of the Select Committees. There have been discussions about which party should seek to have its Members chairing certain Select Committees, and how many Select Committees it is fair for each party to chair. That has been the subject of tough negotiation—
	It being four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Administration Committee

Ordered,
	That Standing Orders Nos. 139 (Select Committee on Broadcasting) and 142 (Domestic Committees) be repealed and the following be a Standing Order of the House:
	"Administration Committee
	(1) There shall be a select committee, to be called the Administration Committee, to consider the services provided for and by the House and to make recommendations thereon to the House of Commons Commission or to the Speaker. Any such recommendation whose implementation would incur additional expenditure charged to the Estimate for House of Commons: Administration shall also be considered by the Finance and Services Committee.
	(2) The committee shall make rules and give directions to Officers of the House in respect only of such administrative matters as may from time to time be determined by the Speaker or by the House of Commons Commission.
	(3) The committee shall consist of not more than 16 Members, of whom five shall be a quorum.
	(4) The committee shall have power—
	(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time;
	(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference; and
	(c) to communicate its evidence to the House of Commons Commission.
	(5) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee and to delegate to such sub-committees any of the powers delegated to the committee under paragraph (2) above.
	(6) Any such sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time the minutes of their proceedings, and shall have a quorum of three.
	(7) The committee and any sub-committee appointed by it shall have the assistance of the Officers of the House appropriate to the matters under consideration.
	(8) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the Committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.".
	Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the remaining Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Finance and Services Committee

Ordered,
	That Standing Order No. 144 (Finance and Services Committee) be amended
	(a) in line 6, by leaving out from the first 'for' to 'for' in line 7 and inserting'House of Commons: Administration';
	(b) in line 10, by leaving out 'Departments of the House' and inserting 'HouseAdministration'; and
	(c) by leaving out lines 14 to 16 and inserting 'the Administration Committee'.—[Mr. Coaker.]

Term Limits for Chairmen of Select Committees

Motion made, and Question put,
	That Standing Order No. 122A (Term limits for chairmen of select committees) shall be amended by leaving out 'choose' and inserting 'have'.—[Mr. Coaker.]
	The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 102.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Select Committees (Size of Committees)

Ordered,
	That the following changes be made to the Standing Orders—
	(a) Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows—
	(i) in items 3, 6, 8, 14 and 16 in the Table, by leaving out '11' and inserting '14';
	(ii) in item 5 in the Table, by leaving out '17' and inserting '14'; and
	(iii) in paragraph (3), by leaving out the words from 'sub-committee' in line 10 to the end of the paragraph; and
	(b) Standing Order No. 141 (Regulatory Reform Committee) be amended by leaving out 'eighteen' in paragraph (9) and inserting 'fourteen'.

Standing Orders (Machinery of Government Changes)

That the following amendments be made to the Standing Orders—
	(a) Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended, in item 16 in the Table, by leaving out 'Board of Inland Revenue, Board of Customs & Excise' and inserting 'HM Revenue & Customs'; and
	(b) Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) be amended, in the table, by leaving out 'HM Customs and Excise' and inserting 'HM Revenue and Customs'.—[Mr. Coaker.]

Administration

Ordered,
	That Mr Bob Ainsworth, Janet Anderson, Derek Conway, Frank Dobson, Mr Brian H. Donohoe, Mr Frank Doran, Mr Eric Forth, Mr Neil Gerrard, Mr Mark Harper, Helen Jones, Mr Kevan Jones, David Lepper, Peter Luff, Mr Patrick McLoughlin, John Thurso and Pete Wishart be members of the Administration Committee.

Constitutional Affairs

That Mr Alan Beith, James Brokenshire, David Howarth, Barbara Keeley, Mr Piara S. Khabra, Jessica Morden, Julie Morgan, Mr Andrew Tyrie, Keith Vaz, Dr Alan Whitehead and Jeremy Wright be members of the Constitutional Affairs Committee.

Culture, Media and Sport

That Janet Anderson, Mr Nigel Evans, Paul Farrelly, Mr Mike Hall, Alan Keen, Rosemary McKenna, Adam Price, Mr Adrian Sanders, Helen Southworth, Mr John Whittingdale and Mr Tim Yeo be members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.—[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will now put motions 12 to 31 together.

Defence

Ordered,
	That Mr James Arbuthnot, Mr David S. Borrow, Mr Colin Breed, Derek Conway, Mr David Crausby, Linda Gilroy, Mr David Hamilton, Mr Mike Hancock, Mr Dai Havard, Mr Brian Jenkins, Mr Kevan Jones, Robert Key, John Smith and Mr Desmond Swayne be members of the Defence Committee.

Education and Skills

That Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods, Mr David Chaytor, Mrs Nadine Dorries, Jeff Ennis, Mr David Evennett, Tim Farron, Helen Jones, Mr Gordon Marsden, Mr Barry Sheerman, Stephen Williams and Mr Rob Wilson be members of the Education and Skills Committee.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

That Mr David Drew, James Duddridge, Patrick Hall, Mr Michael Jack, Lynne Jones, Daniel Kawczynski, David Lepper, Mrs Madeline Moon, Mr Jamie Reed, Mr Dan Rogerson, David Taylor, Sir Peter Soulsby, Mr Shailesh Vara and Mr Roger Williams be members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

Foreign Affairs

That Mike Gapes, Mr Fabian Hamilton, Mr John Horam, Mr Eric Illsley, Mr Paul Keetch, Mr Andrew Mackay, Andrew Mackinlay, Mr John Maples, Sandra Osborne, Mr Greg Pope, Mr Ken Purchase, Sir John Stanley, Ms Gisela Stuart and Richard Younger-Ross be members of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Health

That Mr David Amess, Charlotte Atkins, John Austin, Mr Kevin Barron, Mr Paul Burstow, Jim Dowd, Anne Milton, Dr Doug Naysmith, Mike Penning, Dr Richard Taylor and Dr Howard Stoate be members of the Health Committee.

Home Affairs

That Mr Richard Benyon, Mr Jeremy Browne, Colin Burgon, Mr James Clappison, Mrs Ann Cryer, Mrs Janet Dean, Mr John Denham, Nick Harvey, Mr Nick Herbert, Mr Shahid Malik, Steve McCabe, Gwyn Prosser, Mr Gary Streeter and Mr David Winnick be members of the Home Affairs Committee.

International Development

That John Barrett, John Battle, Hugh Bayley, John Bercow, Malcolm Bruce, Richard Burden, Mr Quentin Davies, Mr Jeremy Hunt, Ann McKechin, Joan Ruddock and Mr Marsha Singh be members of the International Development Committee.

Northern Ireland Affairs

That Mr David Anderson, Gordon Banks, Mr Gregory Campbell, Rosie Cooper, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr Christopher Fraser, Mr John Grogan, Mr Stephen Hepburn, Lady Hermon, Meg Hillier, Dr Alasdair McDonnell, Stephen Pound and Sammy Wilson be members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning,
	 — 
	Local Government And The Regions

That Sir Paul Beresford, Mr Clive Betts, John Cummings, Mr Jim Cunningham, Mr Martin Horwood, Mr Mark Lancaster, Anne Main, Mr Bill Olner, Dr John Pugh, Alison Seabeck and Dr Phyllis Starkey be members of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee.

Scottish Affairs

That Danny Alexander, Gordon Banks, Ms Katy Clark, Mr Ian Davidson, Mr Angus MacNeil, David Mundell, Mr Mohammed Sarwar, Mr John MacDougall, Mr Jim McGovern, Mr Ben Wallace and Mr Charles Walker be members of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

Trade and Industry

That Roger Berry, Mr Peter Bone, Mr Michael Clapham, Mrs Claire Curtis-Thomas, Mr Lindsay Hoyle, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Peter Luff, Judy Mallaber, Rob Marris, Mrs Maria Miller, Anne Moffat, Sir Robert Smith, Mr Mike Weir and Mr Anthony Wright be members of the Trade and Industry Committee.

Transport

That Mr David Clelland, Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson, Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody, Clive Efford, Mrs Louise Ellman, Mr Robert Goodwill, Mr John Leech, Mr Eric Martlew, Mr Lee Scott, Graham Stringer and Mr David Wilshire be members of the Transport Committee.

Treasury

That Lorely Burt, Jim Cousins, Angela Eagle, Mr Michael Fallon, Damian Green, Ms Sally Keeble, Susan Kramer, Mr Andrew Love, Kerry McCarthy, Mr John McFall, Mr George Mudie, Mr David Ruffley, Mr Mark Todd and Peter Viggers be members of the Treasury Committee.

Work And Pensions

That Miss Anne Begg, Harry Cohen, Mr Philip Dunne, Mrs Natascha Engel, Michael Jabez Foster, Justine Greening, Mrs Joan Humble, Greg Mulholland, John Penrose, Mr Terry Rooney and Jenny Willott be members of the Work and Pensions Committee.

Regulatory Reform

That Gordon Banks, Mr James Gray, Stephen Hammond, John Hemming, Sharon Hodgson, Mr Stewart Jackson, Andrew Miller, Dr Doug Naysmith, Mr Jamie Reed, Bob Russell, Alison Seabeck, Mr Andrew Slaughter, Ms Angela C. Smith and Mr Anthony Steen be members of the Regulatory Reform Committee.

Procedure

That Mr David Anderson, Annette Brooke, Ms Katy Clark, Mr Jim Cunningham, Mr David Gauke, Andrew Gwynne, Mr Eric Illsley, Mrs Siân C. James, Mr Greg Knight, Rosemary McKenna, Sir Robert Smith, Mr Rob Wilson and Sir Nicholas Winterton be members of the Procedure Committee.

Environmental Audit

That Mr Peter Ainsworth, Ms Celia Barlow, Mr Martin Caton, Colin Challen, Mr David Chaytor, Mr Tobias Ellwood, Lynne Featherstone, David Howarth, Mr Nick Hurd, David Lepper, Mark Pritchard, Emily Thornberry, Dr Desmond Turner, Mrs Theresa Villiers and Joan Walley be members of the Environmental Audit Committee.

Public Accounts

That Mr Richard Bacon, Angela Browning, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Greg Clark, Mr David Curry, Mr Ian Davidson, HelenGoodman, Ms Diana R. Johnson, Mr Sadiq Khan, Mr Edward Leigh, Sarah McCarthy-Fry, Jon Trickett, Kitty Ussher, Mr Alan Williams and Stephen Williams be members of the Committee of Public Accounts.

Public Administration

That Mr David Burrowes, Julia Goldsworthy, Paul Flynn, David Heyes, Kelvin Hopkins, Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger, Julie Morgan, Mr Gordon Prentice, Grant Shapps, Jenny Willott and Dr Tony Wright be members of the Public Administration Committee.

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

That Mr Douglas Carswell, Mary Creagh, Mr Andrew Dismore, Dr Evan Harris, Dan Norris and Mr Richard Shepherd be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.—[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Human Rights (Joint Committee) (Date and Time of Meeting)

Ordered,
	That the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights do meet the Committee appointed by the Lords on Tuesday 19th July at Four o'clock in Committee Room 5.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Modernisation of the House of Commons

Ordered,
	That a Select Committee of 15 Members be appointed to consider how the House operates and to make recommendations for modernisation;
	That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time and to appoint specialist advisers;
	That Liz Blackman, Mr Crispin Blunt, Ms Dawn Butler, Ann Coffey, Mr David Heath, Mr Geoffrey Hoon, Mr George Howarth, Mr Greg Knight, Mark Lazarowicz, Jessica Morden, Mr Richard Shepherd, Andrew Stunell, Mr Edward Vaizey, Lynda Waltho and Sir Nicholas Winterton be members of the Committee;
	That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.—[Mr. Coaker.]

Liaison Committee

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That—
	(1) With effect for the current Parliament, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of select committees), the Chairman for the time being of each of the Select Committees listed in paragraph (2) below shall be a member of the Liaison Committee;
	  (2) The Committees to which paragraph (1) above applies are:   Administration   Constitutional Affairs   Culture, Media and Sport Defence Education and Skills Environmental Audit Environment, Food and Rural Affairs European Scrutiny Finance and Services Foreign Affairs   Health   Home Affairs   Joint Committee on Human Rights(the Chairman being a Member of this House)   International Development   Northern Ireland Affairs   Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions   Procedure   Public Accounts   Public Administration   Regulatory Reform   Science and Technology   Scottish Affairs   Selection   Standards and Privileges   Statutory Instruments   Trade and Industry   Transport   Treasury   Welsh Affairs   Work and Pensions;   and
	(3) Mr Alan Williams shall also be a Member of the Liaison Committee. —[Mr. Coaker.]
	Amendment proposed: (a) in line 40, at end add 'and
	(4) the senior backbench member of the Chairmen's Panel shall also be a member of the Liaison Committee.'.— [Sir Nicholas Winterton.]
	The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 224.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put and agreed to.

Pay for Chairmen of Standing Committees

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That this House—
	(1) takes note of the Report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries on Pay for Standing Committee Chairmen in the House of Commons presented to Parliament on 6th July (Cm 6566); and
	(2) expresses the opinion that—
	(a) with effect from 1st November 2005, the salary of a Member should be higher by the amount specified in sub-paragraph (b) than the figure determined in accordance with the provisions of the Resolution of the House of 10th July 1996 in respect of any period during which the Member has been nominated by the Speaker to act as a temporary chairman of committees in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 4 (Chairmen's Panel) ('a member of the Panel'), other than to the extent that the provisions of sub-paragraph (d) apply;
	(b) for a Member who has served on the Panel for less than one year, the additional amount should be £2,615; for a Member who has served on the Panel for at least one year but less than three years, the additional amount should be £7,340; for a Member who has served on the Panel for at least three years and less than five years, the additional amount should be £9,960; and for a Member who has served on the Panel for at least five years, the additional amount should be £13,107; and for the purposes of this sub-paragraph length of service should include membership of the Panel before 1st November 2005 and should be calculated irrespective of breaks in service;
	(c) a period should begin for the purpose of sub-paragraph (a) on the day on which the Member is appointed to the Panel, or on 1st November 2005, whichever is the later; and end on the day on which the Member ceases to be a member of the Panel;
	(d) there should be disregarded for the purpose of sub-paragraph (a) any period in respect of which the Member is receiving additional payment as Chairman of a Select Committee;
	(e) the provisions of paragraph (2) of the Resolution of the House of 10th July 1996 relating to Members' Salaries (No. 2) should apply, with effect from 1st April 2006, to a salary determined in accordance with sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) as they apply in relation to a salary determined in accordance with the provisions of that Resolution; and
	(f) the Speaker should have authority to interpret these provisions.—[Mr. Coaker.]
	Amendment proposed: in line 15, leave out from 'than' to 'the' in line 21 and insert
	'two years, the additional amount should be £7,340 and for a Member who has served for more than two years'. —[Mr. Forth.]
	The House divided: Ayes 85, Noes 220.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put:—
	The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 74.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Pay for Chairmen of Standing Committees (No. 2)

(Queen's recommendation signified).
	Resolved,
	That the following provision shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—
	(a) with effect from 1st November 2005, the salary of a Member shall be higher by the amount specified in sub-paragraph (b) than the figure determined in accordance with the provisions of the Resolution of the House of 10th July 1996 in respect of any period during which the Member has been nominated by the Speaker to act as a temporary chairman of committees in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 4 (Chairmen's Panel) ('a member of the Panel'), other than to the extent that the provisions of sub-paragraph (d) apply;
	(b) for a Member who has served on the Panel for less than one year, the additional amount shall be £2,615; for a Member who has served on the Panel for at least one year but less than three years, the additional amount shall be £7,340; for a Member who has served on the Panel for at least three years and less than five years, the additional amount shall be £9,960; and for a Member who has served on the Panel for at least five years, the additional amount shall be £13,107; and for the purposes of this sub-paragraph length of service shall include membership of the Panel before 1st November 2005 and shall be calculated irrespective of breaks in service;
	(c) a period should begin for the purpose of sub-paragraph (a) on the day on which the Member is appointed to the Panel, or on 1st November 2005, whichever is the later; and end on the day on which the Member ceases to be a member of the Panel;
	(d) there shall be disregarded for the purpose of sub-paragraph (a) any period in respect of which the Member is receiving additional payment as Chairman of a Select Committee;
	(e) the provisions of paragraph (2) of the Resolution of the House of 10th July 1996 relating to Members' Salaries (No. 2) shall apply, with effect from 1st April 2006, to a salary determined in accordance with subparagraphs (a) and (b) as they apply in relation to a salary determined in accordance with the provisions of that Resolution; and
	(f) the Speaker shall have authority to interpret these provisions.—[Mr. Coaker.]

Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees

Motion made, and Question put,
	That this House expresses the opinion that, with immediate effect, the resolution of the House of 30th October 2003 relating to Pay for Chairman of Select Committees (No. 2) should be amended in paragraph (1) by leaving out "or the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments" and inserting "the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Administration Committee, the Finance and Services Committee, the Liaison Committee, the Procedure Committee, the Committee of Selection or the Committee on Standards and Privileges".
	The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 59.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2)

(Queen's recommendation signified).
	Resolved,
	That, with immediate effect, the resolution of the House of 30th October 2003 relating to Pay for Chairman of Select Committees (No. 2) shall be amended in paragraph (1) by leaving out "or the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments" and inserting "the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Administration Committee, the Finance and Services Committee, the Liaison Committee, the Procedure Committee, the Committee of Selection or the Committee on Standards and Privileges".

Chairmen's Panel

Ordered,
	That Standing Order No. 4 (Chairman's Panel) be amended by leaving out the words ", for every session," in line 1.

Joint Activities with the National Assembly for Wales

That Standing Order No. 137A (Select Committees: power to work with other committees) be amended, in line 23, at the end, by adding the words—
	'(3) The Welsh Affairs Committee may invite members of any specified committee of the National Assembly for Wales to attend and participate in its proceedings (but not to vote).'.— [Mr. Coaker.]

Standards and Privileges

Geoff Hoon: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of the Fourth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Session 2004–05 (House of Commons Paper No. 472), and approves the revised Code of Conduct set out in the Annex to the Report.
	Motion 41 is the first of four motions before us in this debate. The House approved the original code of conduct and guide to the rules on 24 July 1996. A slightly revised code of conduct and substantially changed guide to the rules were approved by the House on 14 May 2002. In 2002, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that in each Parliament the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should initiate a review of the code of conduct and guide to the rules. That was endorsed by the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges and supported in a debate in the House on 26 June 2003.
	The commissioner therefore conducted a review last year, consulting all Members of the House, and made recommendations for some modest changes to the code to the Standards and Privileges Committee. The principal changes that he recommended are, first, the addition of provisions to make clearer the purpose and scope of the code; secondly, the inclusion of new statements of Members' duties in respect of the commissioner and the Standards and Privileges Committee, implementing recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life; and, thirdly, the extension of the existing provisions regarding misuse of parliamentary allowances to misuse of facilities and services provided by the House.
	The Committee on Standards and Privileges endorsed all the changes proposed by the commissioner and added another: that there should be added to the principle set out in the code that Members have a public duty to uphold the law, the words
	"including the general law against discrimination".
	Those changes have been incorporated in the proposed new code of practice printed in the annexe to the report, which the House is being asked to approve today.
	I believe that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who chaired the Committee in the last Parliament, will speak in the debate and explain the background to the proposed changes in greater detail—although I hope in not too great a detail.
	One of the Committee's recommendations is not reflected in the motions before us. In paragraph 20, the Committee supports the commissioner's recommendation that the House should consider whether the Director of Finance and Administration, the Serjeant at Arms and other relevant House authorities should henceforth have an obligation to refer to the commissioner for investigation under the code the more significant instances of misuse that come independently to their attention, particularly where there is prima facie evidence of deliberate abuse. The Committee recommended that the House should take a decision in principle on that proposal when it considered the proposed new code. It would be a significant change, with potentially serious implications for the relationship between the Officers of the House and its Members. The recommendation requires further consultation and would be better taken forward separately. The Committee recognised that the recommendation was free-standing and therefore capable of independent consideration. I welcome the views of right hon. and hon. Members, and as ever I will listen carefully to what the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire may say on that point.
	Motion 42 amends Standing Order No. 150, in line with paragraphs 15 and 17 of the Committee's report, introducing a new, simplified procedure for dealing with some cases of misuse of parliamentary allowances, facilities or services. With the agreement of the Member concerned, the commissioner will be able to exercise discretion to refer such cases to the relevant Officer of the House to secure appropriate reimbursement. Provided that the process is completed in a reasonable time scale, there will be no need for the commissioner to report to the Committee. That represents a useful extension to the rectification procedure in respect of inadvertent or minor failures to register or declare interests.
	Motion 43 makes two tidying amendments to Standing Order No. 149, which provides the order of reference for the Committee on Standards and Privileges. It reduces the size of the Committee from 11 members to 10 following the agreement made in the previous Parliament that there should be a gradual movement towards a Committee of 10 in which no party had overall control, as recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
	The order also removes the requirement that the Committee appoint a sub-committee specifically to receive reports from the commissioner relating to investigations into specific complaints. In practice, the Committee has never adopted that approach and if it wished to do so in future its general power to appoint sub-committees would allow that to happen.
	Motion 44 nominates 10 members of the Committee. The House will be grateful to those Members for their willingness to serve on the Committee, which is a responsible and often thankless task, but very important to the integrity and standing of the House. I commend the motions.

Chris Grayling: I echo and support the words of the Leader of the House. This is a sensible set of motions. I offer my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for the work that he and his Committee did on this subject in the previous Parliament. The House should also thank the commissioner for his work in putting together the proposed new code. Beyond that, I have nothing to add except that the motions have the support of my colleagues and I, and I look forward to hearing comments and explanation from my right hon. Friend.

David Heath: I do not need to detain the House for very long either. Having had the pleasure of serving on the Committee on Standards and Privileges in the previous Parliament under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), I want to put on record my appreciation of his chairmanship, which was exemplary, and of the work of colleagues on the Committee. As the Leader of the House said, it is a responsible but often thankless task. Members are happy to undertake it on behalf of the House, but on occasions we should recognise the difficult decisions that they have to take and the careful consideration that they must give to matters brought to their attention—along with the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner. In addition, I strongly support the proposed extension of the rectification procedure.
	As I said in a previous debate, the Committee on Standards in Public Life was right to recommend that not only should the Committee on Standards and Privileges do its work fairly, impartially and well, but that we should ensure that that impression is given to the outside world. The minor changes to the composition of the Committee—reducing the size so that there is no in-built Government majority, ensuring representation of the minority parties, in the form of the representative of Plaid Cymru in the previous Parliament as well as in this if the proposal goes through, and ensuring that Parliamentary Private Secretaries and Front-Bench Opposition spokesmen are not represented—add to the regard with which the Committee is likely to be held by those who look at its proceedings. That is right and proper, and I would recommend it to the House. I look forward to hearing what the former Chairman—and, I hope, the future Chairman—of the Standards and Privileges Committee says about the proposals.

George Young: I am grateful for right hon. and hon. Members' kind words about the work of the Standards and Privileges Committee in the last Parliament and for what they said about the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly in our debate.
	The report that we are debating is temporarily orphaned, as the Committee that produced it in March this year is no more and its successor will not be set up until after the end of this debate. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for bringing the matter before the House quickly, as the Committee recommended in the last Parliament, so that the new code can come into force as early as possible in this Parliament. This evening, I am prepared to act as a foster parent. The review, as the Leader of the House said, is the first major review of the code since it was first introduced in 1996. Its genesis lies in the recommendation by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, accepted by the House in a debate in June 2003, that the code and the guide to the rules be reviewed once every Parliament.
	A substantially revised guide was approved by the House in May 2002, following an extensive inquiry by the Committee and its predecessor, but before the Committee on Standards in Public Life made its recommendation. In July 2004, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards initiated a consultation on the revision of the code. In February this year, he submitted proposals for a revised code to the Committee. On behalf of the previous Committee, I thank the Commissioner for the substantial and thorough work that went into that exercise. As the Committee reported, it was clear from responses to the consultation that there was no general feeling, either inside or outside the House, that the code required major revision. As the Committee said in its report, that is a welcome demonstration that
	"the code continues to achieve the objectives for which it was created in the first place."
	It is therefore not surprising that the commissioner recommended no great changes, and that the Committee was happy to accept all his proposals.
	The principal changes in the proposed new code, which brings a welcome overall enhancement to the clarity and focus of the code on the issues that matter, include new statements on Members' duties from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and the implementation of recommendations by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. They also include the extension of existing provisions on the misuse of parliamentary allowances to the misuse of facilities and services provided by the House. It is right in principle that the misuse of House resources, whether in cash or in kind, should be treated in the same way. The Committee gave careful consideration to the inclusion of a non-discrimination provision in the proposed new code. Such provisions are commonly included in professional codes of practice, and the Committee decided to include one. I believe that it has done so effectively and in a way that will not impose additional burdens on Members.
	When considering the new code, the Committee was anxious to ensure that its proposals were proportionate to the regulatory need, and that it should not seek to increase unnecessarily the regulatory burden on Members, which some already find irksome. Nor did it wish to increase the burden on the commissioner for no good purpose. In recommending an extension to the scope of the code to include the misuse of facilities and services, we therefore recommended that the present arrangements for investigating such matters continue to be used as far as possible, but under the oversight of the commissioner. Those arrangements appear to work well and to command general confidence in the House, so we saw no need to change them for the sake of it.
	The Committee recommended a procedure whereby the Commissioner could, if appropriate, dispose of certain cases by referring them to the relevant Officer of the House to secure suitable financial reimbursement rather than making a report to the Committee. In a deregulatory move, the Committee recommended that such a procedure should be available in misuse of allowances cases. That is not possible under the existing code.
	Speaking personally, I would like to see further deregulatory moves, consistent with proper accounting for public funds. In the House we recognise the importance of a deregulated environment for those whom we represent, while putting more regulation on ourselves. I am not sure which body is the appropriate forum to take this agenda forward, but I detect an appetite for it in the House. I am pleased to see that the Government have tabled motions that will enable the two recommendations to which I referred a moment ago to be implemented.
	The Committee also set out a principle which I hope is not contentious—that what happens to a Member should depend on the severity or otherwise of the offence, rather than on the route by which it is uncovered. In principle, we argue that there should be a level playing field. I recognise, as did the Committee, that the proposal in the Committee's report—which, as the Leader of the House said, we are not being asked to deal with today—that Officers of the House should, in some circumstances, report evidence of apparent misuse to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards raises sensitive issues around Members' relationship with those Departments, and that how the level playing field might be brought about in practice may require, as the Leader of the House said, further consultation.
	I am happy with that, and I hope that such discussion or consultation could take place in the context of acceptance of the underlying principle that the seriousness of the matter should be the paramount consideration. That can only enhance public confidence in our regulatory arrangements. Handling all serious cases in the same manner, no matter how they arise, will also mean that the procedural safeguards and protection for Members inherent in the procedures overseen by the Committee would be available to all Members concerned.
	We made good progress in the last Parliament in building public confidence in the regulatory framework, and in self-regulation in particular. As Peter Riddell, chief political correspondent of The Times, stated in a recent review of the first 10 years of the Committee on Standards in Public Life,
	"The revamped system of Commons self-regulation and disclosure is now operating pretty well".
	I am sure the new Committee will want to build on that record. In the last Parliament, the commissioner and the Committee rightly emphasised education and prevention, and I was pleased to see the extensive briefings on standards matters offered to new Members. The proposed new code strengthens in a proportionate way the expectations of both the House and the public as regards Members' conduct, and I commend the motions to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

Ordered,
	That Standing Order No. 150 (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) be amended by leaving out paragraph (3) and inserting the following—
	'(3) No report shall be made by the Commissioner:
	(a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner's opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and
	(b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable.'—[Tony Cunningham.]

Committee on Standards and Privileges

Ordered,
	That Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards and Privileges) be amended
	as follows—
	(a) by leaving out 'eleven' in line 24 and inserting 'ten'; and
	(b) by leaving out from 'committee;' in line 33 to the end of line 35.—[Tony Cunningham.]

Standards And Privileges (Nomination)

Ordered,
	That Mr Kevin Barron, Angela Browning, Ben Chapman, Mr Andrew Dismore, Nick Harvey, Mr Brian Jenkins, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Mr Andrew Mackay, Dr Alan Whitehead and Sir George Young be members of the Standards and Privileges Committee.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

PETITION
	 — 
	Exmouth (Development)

Hugo Swire: Exmouth in my constituency is now the largest town in Devon. It is therefore only right that there should be a proper discussion about the town's future in order to revitalise the local economy, particularly in the light of the weekend's announcement that the university of Plymouth may be planning to relocate the remaining faculty at Rolle college to Plymouth.
	There are many different views about what form the development should take, but there is considerable dismay among my constituents at the thought that Exmouth's most valuable asset, its waterfront along the estuary, might be developed. The 10,970 Exmouthians and visitors to Exmouth have signed a petition. The petition of Exmouth Citizens Forum and its supporters
	Declares that they are concerned at any proposed building on the Exmouth waterfront and along the Exmouth estuary.
	The Petitioners therefore request that that the House of Commons takes note of their concerns.
	To lie upon the Table.

CO-PROXAMOL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Tony Cunningham.]

Anne Begg: I am delighted to have the opportunity to call an Adjournment debate on the availability of co-proxamol, which is a mild analgesic that is used to treat those who have mild to moderate chronic pain. The debate stems from the advice that was given to general practitioners in January this year by the Committee on Safety of Medicines, which recommended that co-proxamol should be withdrawn entirely over the next six to 12 months.
	I must declare an interest: I have been prescribed the drug, which I have used regularly for some years, and I take four co-proxamol a day. However, I am not here tonight because I use the drug and might be affected. I am here because a number of my constituents who use the drug contacted me when the withdrawal of co-proxamol was first announced in the press because they are worried about what might happen. When my constituent, Jonathan Russell, who has ankylosing spondylitis, came to one of my constituency surgeries, I began to take an even greater interest in the debate.
	Jonathan has been taking co-proxamol, which he has found to be an effective response to his chronic condition. I have known him for a number of years in his professional capacity: he is a social worker who works with disabled people and gets them into employment and he leads an extremely active life. He contends that he can lead his busy life because of co-proxamol, which allows him a good night's sleep and also keeps him supple.
	When Jonathan heard about the concerns associated with co-proxamol, he went to his GP, who took him off the drug. Over the past few months, he has tried various other drugs, which are supposed to be as good as, if not better than, co-proxamol, but he has told me that none of them are working. Indeed, some of the new drugs are making him feel very unwell and not allowing him to get the night's sleep that he requires, which is affecting his ability to work.
	The desperation caused by his not feeling well and the fear that he can never return to co-proxamol drove Jonathan to seek an appointment with me and to complain. He is not the type of person who normally complains—he deals with a chronic condition extremely well and with an extremely cheery disposition. The effect that the withdrawal of co-proxamol has had on his life must be extremely serious for him to complain. He has learned to live with and manage his pain, which is the meaning of chronic pain, but he cannot do so without access to co-proxamol. The effects of the other drugs mean that he has been unable to loosen up in the morning and that he has been late into work. Indeed, he is afraid that he may have to give up work if he cannot continue to use what he regards as a mild, effective drug that has no side effects.
	Why has the withdrawal of co-proxamol been proposed? Is it because the drug is ineffective? The answer appears to be, "No"—patients report that it is extremely effective. Is it because the drug has serious side effects? The answer is also, "No"—patients who use co-proxamol feel that out of all analgesics and other alternative drugs, whether they are COX-2 inhibitors or non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, it is the drug with the fewest side effects. Has co-proxamol been withdrawn because it increases the likelihood of a heart attack, a stroke or any other major health problem in the individual who is taking the drug? Again, the answer is "No"—the alternative drugs, which I shall discuss later are associated with a higher risk of such major health problems.
	The reason why co-proxamol has been withdrawn, as was confirmed to me in a letter from the Secretary of State for Health, is that some people might abuse the drug and use it to commit suicide—not that the drug leads to people having suicidal impulses but that it is a mechanism for those who want to commit suicide. The Department of Health says that between 400 to 500 suicides a year are associated with co-proxamol, and that is why it has to take action.
	Co-proxamol is quite different from most other drugs that have been withdrawn from the market. In those cases, there is usually an associated health risk for those who take the drug; in this case, the associated health risk is to those who may not have been prescribed the drug but take it in order to commit suicide or those who have been prescribed it but take it in overdose and therefore unconsciously or unwittingly commit suicide.
	People who are on co-proxamol are aggrieved about the different approach that has been taken to that drug which means that they are losing an effective analgesic not because of anything that they do in terms of their behaviour or prescribing practices but because of what others might do. If that thinking was applied to all drugs, almost all would probably have to be taken off the market, because all drugs have some kind of associated risk; certainly, many opiates can be used to commit suicide.
	Several years ago, we had the same debate about paracetamol. It is interesting that the advice that GPs have been given by the Committee on Safety of Medicines is that paracetamol, the drug that was controversial a few years ago, is just as effective as an analgesic. In medical terms, it might well be, but the people who use co-proxamol believe, from their own experience, that it is a superior drug. What is different about it is that it contains destropropoxyphene, which can give people a high and be mildly addictive. It is probably that feeling of well-being that people get that makes them believe that it is a drug. But that is not a reason for withdrawing co-proxamol; many drugs, including opiates, will give people a sense of well-being.
	The advice to GPs goes on to suggest that if paracetamol is not enough they should consider prescribing a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory such as ibuprofen. There have recently been reports about the risk factors inherent in ibuprofen. We also know that other non-steroidal anti-inflammatories can cause gastro-intestinal bleeds, so they are not risk-free drugs. If that is not enough, GPs are advised that perhaps they could think of prescribing dihydrocodeine, which is a very strong analgesic but has severe side effects—it makes people feel very sleepy and leads to constipation. The alternative drugs that are proposed to replace co-proxamol are not without associated side effects or risks.
	The advice recognises that for some people none of this may work, and in such cases taking antidepressants such as amytriptyline is suggested. That is bizarre, because that class of drug is indicated in more suicide attempts than co-proxamol, since antidepressant drugs are generally used by those who may be more likely to have suicidal tendencies in the first place.
	Why has it taken six months for us to get this far and have a debate in the House? It is probably because problems are only now beginning to appear. In some cases, patients who were on co-proxamol went to their GP, who prescribed something different and, six months later, they are realising that none of the alternative drugs work. That happened in the case of my constituent, Jonathan Russell. He has found that nothing else works. He has tried everything else and concluded that co-proxamol was the best drug for him.
	The second group of patients comprises people such as me. I have not been to my GP but I know about the risks and that, at some point, I shall have to address the matter. However, that will be sometime in the future and I shall worry about it then. Many patients on co-proxamol may fall into that category. Perhaps some are not aware of what is going to happen. As time goes on and more practices determine their strategy on prescribing co-proxamol, that group, like my constituent Jonathan, will become more distressed.
	People who are working in health are worried that not only co-proxamol is affected. If the suggestion had been that co-proxamol should be withdrawn from use, there would be less concern. However, many drugs that are used as alternatives to or alongside co-proxamol for chronic pain, especially the anti-inflammatories that are prescribed for people with arthritis, have large question marks over their use and the associated risks. Some have been withdrawn.
	For example, the COX-2 inhibitors have proved remarkably effective in dealing with arthritic pain. Again, I speak from personal experience because I was on Vioxx. It was withdrawn and I went back on to co-proxamol. That was ironic because Vioxx was extremely effective and, when I took it, I did not need co-proxamol—as an anti-inflammatory, Vioxx reduced the pain and I did not need the analgesic effects of co-proxamol. Withdrawal of some of the COX-2 inhibitors has meant that people are more reliant than they had been on co-proxamol.
	We must consider the exact risk that we ask patients to take. Almost all drugs have some associated risk and side effects, which can differ in different people. It is important that, when patients and GPs make decisions together on the most effective drugs for dealing with pain, they can make an informed choice. It should be up to them to weigh up the risks and benefits associated with their drug. If a drug is extremely effective, as the COX-2 inhibitors seemed to be, would patients be willing to put up with the associated increased risk of heart attack if they could be almost pain free for the next 20 years? Patients, with their doctors, should be allowed to make that informed choice.
	Groups such as Arthritis Care have been keen to emphasise that informed choice. It is not a case of asking for all drugs to be available to all people at all times but of making a correct choice. I pay tribute to Arthritis Care. After I had applied for the Adjournment debate, I realised that I needed a little more background information about what patient groups felt about the withdrawal of co-proxamol and whether the issue was more widespread than the case of my constituent. Arthritis Care has been extremely helpful in providing me with a great deal of background information.
	Groups such as Arthritis Care do not ask for co-proxamol to be freely available. It recognises that the Committee on Safety of Medicines has to take account of the public health aspects of any drug's use and misuse. It has to take account of misuse, even by those who have not been prescribed the drug.
	I am normally supportive of medical opinion. I am unlikely to go against informed medical opinion and it is therefore strange for me to be in the position of asking the Government to reconsider the advice from one of its committees, which has been established to provide such advice. I have always supported the work of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, and I believe that we must have independent committees to consider these issues.
	It is important that the Government look again at the prescribing arrangements for co-proxamol. Why should a person who lives alone and who takes four co-proxamols a day—which is well below a dangerous dose—be denied a drug with minimal side effects that he or she finds effective, just because other users cannot keep their drugs secure and might allow them to get into the hands of people who want to use them for the wrong reasons? There is a middle way. Arthritis Care does not necessarily want co-proxamol to be made available as a front-line drug. It would like GPs to be given the chance to find another suitable drug. If they cannot, however, it would like them to be able to prescribe co-proxamol, perhaps having sat down with the patient and provided a demonstration, either written or otherwise, to ensure that they are aware of the risks inherent in the drug, and of the risks involved if the drug is misused or left lying around.
	Perhaps we could also consider changing the packaging of the drug, as was done with paracetamol. Co-proxamol is packaged in strips of 10 at the moment, which constitutes an overdose, whereas eight would be a safe dose. Perhaps we could consider packaging it in strips of eight. I hope that the Minister will take those suggestions on board.
	In the past couple of days, I have noticed a difference in approach. In response to a media request, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has now said that
	"prescribers will be able to continue to prescribe co-proxamol on their own responsibility if the clinical need is justified."
	That is not what patients are being told, however. The least that the Minister could do tonight would be to clarify the situation with regard to the availability of co-proxamol. Is it to be withdrawn completely? Is it to be available only while stocks last? Or will it continue to be available under certain conditions? If it is to continue to be available, that information needs to be well publicised. Organisations such as Arthritis Care which have large numbers of members who use co-proxamol will be delighted to have the issue clarified. There is confusion at the moment, and a great deal of distress in the wider community, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance tonight.

Caroline Flint: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) on securing this debate. This is an important issue, and her questions on health and health care issues are always thoughtful and thought-provoking. I acknowledge that the relationship between a GP and a patient in relation to pain management is a very personal one. Each individual needs to describe how pain is affecting them personally, and the response can change from one person to another. As my hon. Friend has rightly said, this is also a very complex issue.
	My hon. Friend has brought to our attention the concerns of her constituent, Jonathan Russell, about the withdrawal of co-proxamol. The Department has received about 130 letters from Members of Parliament writing on behalf of their constituents about this issue. My hon. Friend also mentioned Arthritis Care, and I would like to acknowledge the good work that that organisation does to support those who suffer from arthritis. It provides an experienced and knowledgeable voice on the issue of patients' rights, and also works with health professionals. The decision to withdraw co-proxamol was not an easy one to make and followed an extensive risk-benefit assessment, a wide public consultation and advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines. The Government's independent scientific advisory committee on medicine safety also contributed, as did other experts.
	Co-proxamol is a combination of a weak opiate painkiller with a relatively low dose of paracetamol and has been available since 1965, before the current system of medicines regulation existed. As a long-established medicine, it has not been subjected to modern standards of clinical research—clinical trials then were often either poorly designed or of very short duration and on the whole did not produce definitive results. As such there is a lack of evidence that co-proxamol is more effective than full-dose paracetamol. Despite the lack of evidence, many prescribers considered it to be a useful alternative to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen and more potent opiates in situations in which paracetamol alone is ineffective.
	On the other hand, the dangers of a co-proxamol overdose, especially when taken with alcohol, are well established and, I am afraid, cannot be ignored. Co-proxamol is involved in 300 to 400 self-poisoning deaths each year, of which around a fifth are accidental. Many deaths involve people taking co-proxamol that has not been prescribed to them. Co-proxamol can be very toxic, and overdose can occur with only a few tablets more than the recommended daily dose. Toxicity from co-proxamol overdose is extremely rapid compared with that from other pain-relieving medicines, so, sadly, victims often die before they reach hospital. Unlike paracetamol, there is no effective antidote to co-proxamol poisoning. Importantly, paracetamol is considered to have a comparatively good safety profile—the onset of toxic effects is slow, allowing more time for effective treatment.
	Advice from the CSM aimed at the reduction of co-proxamol toxicity and fatal overdose dates back as early as 1985. You can therefore see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the issue has been discussed for a considerable time. Sadly, this advice has not been effective in preventing the deaths that occur each year following a co-proxamol overdose. The growing concern was prompted by recently published UK research using data from the Office for National Statistics showing that co-proxamol alone now accounts for almost one fifth of drug-related suicides and is second only to tricyclic antidepressants as an agent of fatal drug overdose. Concerns have also been raised by Sweden in the European Parliament.
	In light of the lack of evidence that co-proxamol is any more effective than full- dose paracetamol in pain management, and its high toxicity in overdose, the expert advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines was sought. During 2004, the CSM comprehensively reviewed all the available evidence regarding the risks and benefits of co-proxamol. A public call for evidence on the risks and benefits of co-proxamol was also conducted for 12 weeks in 2004. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency wrote directly to a large number of organisations representing healthcare professionals, patient groups and other stakeholders as well as publishing the request for information on the MHRA website. Comments from patients and members of the public, as well as health care professionals, were welcomed. The CSM reviewed all the responses to this call for evidence and also international evidence on the safety of co-proxamol. During this review, the CSM noted that previously strengthened warnings to doctors and patients on the hazards of co-proxamol have unfortunately proved ineffective.
	After considering the wide range of available evidence and the options for action to reduce the risk of overdose—for example, prescriber and patient education, smaller packet sizes and restricted indications, as my hon. Friend outlined—the CSM determined that the risks of co-proxamol outweighed the benefits of allowing the medicine to remain on the market. Following advice from the CSM, the MHRA has therefore agreed with the manufacturers to withdraw co-proxamol over an extended period of time in order to allow long-term users an opportunity to adopt suitable alternative pain management strategies. The CSM advised that the withdrawal of co-proxamol should be phased over a period of up to 36 months, or to an earlier timetable to be agreed with manufacturers. Most manufacturers have indicated that they intend to withdraw the drug over a period of approximately six to 12 months. A few have indicated that they wish to phase the withdrawal until the end of 2007.
	Over that period, we expect to see the prescribing of co-proxamol decline as patients are moved to suitable alternatives. To help doctors find the best options for individual patients, the MHRA has issued CSM pain management guidance. Available data on sales at wholesale level suggest that the sale of co-proxamol is slowing down steadily. There has been as much as a 10 per cent. month-on-month decline since June 2004, and total supply has more than halved in the six months since the announcement was made. An article in the May edition of Pulse was authored by a GP who has reduced the number of patients in his care on co-proxamol from 438 to 20. That demonstrates that good GP care and discussing the various issues with patients can effect a change to an alternative that works.
	It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Tony Cunningham.]

Caroline Flint: Sensitive discussion that takes into account all the options can effect a smooth transition to an alternative. However, the GP in question does acknowledge that, for a minority of his patients, other alternatives have not proved an option. However, a reduction from 438 to 20 is a significant one.

Anne Begg: To judge by what my hon. Friend said earlier, it appears that stocks will run out, so even for the minority who found co-proxamol the most effective remedy—they include my constituent—there will be an end date by which the drug will be completely off the market. Is that correct?

Caroline Flint: I will address that point shortly, as I want to clarify the situation for the minority of patients who have agreed with, in most cases, their GP that there is a clinical need to continue with the prescribing of co-proxamol.
	Many local formularies, including in Northern Ireland, have already phased out co-proxamol altogether. It has been on the market for 40 years and it is clear that some patients have been established on this medicine for a long time, so I realise that the action that has been taken must be very distressing. The Department has received many letters from patients who are upset at its withdrawal. I have sympathy for them, but I am encouraged by the progress that has already been made in shifting to other forms of pain management. The decision to withdraw co-proxamol from the market has tested medicines regulation to the extreme. However, weighed against the difficulties caused to individual users is the clear public health gain in removing a medicine that has been widely implicated in accidental and non-accidental overdose.
	At the end of the phased withdrawal, and following the cancellation or withdrawal of licences for existing products, provision will remain for the supply of unlicensed preparations. I understand that the drug will continue to be available on a named patient basis, and that the MHRA will communicate that fact clearly. Its doing so should deal with the question of supply, but I will check this point for my hon. Friend and I am happy to write to her about it.
	Individual patient use of co-proxamol preparations could continue, with responsibility for such use falling primarily on the prescriber, who is usually the GP. In this way, where a clinical need exists and alternatives have proved unsuccessful, it will still be possible to prescribe co-proxamol, but in a more targeted way than in the past, and with a stronger focus on the risk-benefit judgment for the particular patient. I hope that that judgment will be reached through a strong relationship between patient and prescriber that establishes the patient's needs and their need to use this drug.

Anne Begg: In making a risk analysis and a public benefit analysis of the withdrawal of co-proxamol, will she also consider the following point, which she will probably be unable to deal with this evening? Those who previously used co-proxamol, and who were active and in work, might lose their job and be unable to work as a result of its withdrawal and their failing to find an equally effective alternative. My constituents' fear is that they will therefore be a burden on the state, instead of contributing to it.

Caroline Flint: It is important that all the alternatives are looked at. We need to ensure, in respect not just of co-proxamol but of other drugs, that GPs have the most up-to-date and most effective pain management care for their patients. Sometimes drugs become a matter of custom and practice, because it is the one thing that the general practitioner knows about, so he or she continues to prescribe it despite evidence that there are better alternatives. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying: I will reflect on what she said and write to her on that issue.
	What I am saying this evening is that the primary issue is that we stand by the decisions made by the Committee on Safety of Medicines, while at the same time recognising that, for a minority who have gone through all the alternatives, there may be a clinical need to continue with the prescribing of co-proxamol.

Anne Begg: My hon. Friend is a Minister in the Department of Health, so the calculation may be done on health grounds, but there may be social costs to the withdrawal of the drug, which may not have been factored in with respect to the health costs of keeping the drug going. There could be costs to society if people fail to get an effective drug and co-proxamol is withdrawn.

Caroline Flint: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. Yes, we have to weigh up all the different factors. However, the information that I provided earlier this evening about the impact of this particular drug on the number of people who die through either accidental or planned overdose is a very serious issue. I understand that all drugs have risks, but we face huge challenges that cannot be overcome through treatment if someone overdoses by accident. Some people, unfortunately, seek to commit suicide, but they may rethink that option if they have a chance of getting treatment—after being saved, as it were. That raises many questions about co-proxamol. From the evidence that I have seen, the option of having treatment, thereby saving life, is much reduced by the accidental or intentional use of this drug when it leads to an overdose. We have to take all those factors into consideration.
	As I have already said, it is a complex issue that has focused the minds of many people in establishing what is the best thing to do. No one lightly takes removing a drug from the market when it has become part and parcel of how many people, whether they are in or out of work, cope with their daily lives. I referred earlier to an article in Pulse, which made it clear that GPs are engaging with patients in a sensitive way in planning the withdrawal of co-proxamol in favour of alternatives. The fact that there has been a decline, from 438 to 20, in the number of people who cannot deal with any alternative drug shows that progress can be made, although we must be mindful of the minority for whom alternative treatment may not be an option. There is a process that must be gone through but, as I said, GPs or prescribers retain the ability to prescribe co-proxamol.
	I shall write to my hon. Friend about some of the issues that she has raised, and particularly about the question of stocks. Clearly, it is important to determine what the future holds for those people for whom co-proxamol is the only drug that can give them the relief that they need.
	I welcome the opportunity to hold this debate. Sometimes, regulation must balance the preferences of the few with the needs of the many, but that is not to say that we do not take account of the individual requirements that my hon. Friend has expressed so ably. I hope that she and organisations such as Arthritis Care are reassured by my acceptance of the possibility that co-proxamol will continue to be prescribed where there is a clear clinical need because alternative treatments are unsuitable.
	The Government are sensitive to the problem and accept that pain management is a complex matter. We expect health professionals to engage fully with patients on the range of drugs that are available to manage their pain, and we know that patients have considerable interest in complementary and alternative medicines for the management of pain.
	The way forward is to ensure that the relationship between health professionals and patients is developed. It is not good enough for GPs or prescribers to sign off a patient on drugs for many years without any discussion of pain management. The relationship must be a progressive one: it may change with time, but both patient and prescriber must feel that they have attempted to make the best possible progress.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Seven o'clock.